Protect Our Vote!   TrueVoteMD.org
| Home | About Us | Get Involved | Get Informed | Contact Us | Links | Blog | Donate |
 
Articles
Editorials
Key Dates
Latest News
Legislation
Litigation
Press Releases
Reports and Studies
Take Action
Donate
- - - - - - -
Sign the Pledge!
Can Research Conducted at the University of Maryland, funded by the Board of Elections, Be Trusted?
Over the past three years many studies have come out on the need for a Vote-Verified Paper Ballot, focusing on security concerns regarding the paperless voting machines.  In Maryland the State Board of Elections contracted with the University of Maryland, to conduct studies on the feasibility of adding various verification systems onto the current Diebold TS machines as well as to poll Maryland voters on their views about whether a paper ballot was needed.  You can view the studies on the website of the Maryland Institute for Public Policy and Research (http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/).  This column looks not just at this study but also at the relationship between Linda Lamone, the State Board of Elections, and the University of Maryland.
The UMBC Reports
 
It is fair to say that many people in TrueVote were disappointed by the studies. TrueVoters felt that the limited scope of the feasibility study as requested by the State Board of Elections had huge implications on the information it provided to the Voter-Verified Paper Ballot debate in that it only included add-ons to the Diebold machine and not the most widely use paper ballot system -- precinct-based optical scans.  This comment was made when we met with the Prof. Don Norris of UMBC, however we were told they could do anything about it, as they had to follow the guidelines of the SBE's request.  This insured that the outcome would continue to support the use of the Diebold machines.  We also take issue with the way that paper trail opponents used the information in the poll of Maryland voters to suggest that the status quo is acceptable to Maryland voters.
 
Several politicians used the study by UMBC as a political scapegoat as the feasibility study claimed there were no workable alternatives to the present voting system.   However as a TrueVoter/Election Judge commented to me.

“Lamone did not hire them to study, "What is the best way to have verifiable voting in MD?" She hired them to study "What is the best way to add verification to MD's CURRENT voting system?" So they did-- as best they could, given the flawed premise.”
 
If the study had included precinct-based optical scan they would have been told there was a less expensive, accurate, reliable and widely used paper ballot system.  Of course such a finding would have been inconsistent with the views of the State Board of Elections.  In the 2005 legislative cycle a bill requiring a study was put forward by the legislature instead of passing a bill requiring VVPB. The Governor vetoed this bill, however then the SBE funded the studies on their own.
 
The feasibility study had difficulty getting vendors to provide equipment.   Perhaps because they did not want their voting system examined or because they knew Maryland was a Diebold state and it was unlikely other system would be considered.  It is also worth noting that the study never actually hooked up any of the tested verification systems to the Diebold TS, rather they used a computer program, and tested with that.

Both studies were reported two moths late; they were due in December and came out in mid February, during the legislative session, leaving little time for reflection and independent analysis.  The feasibility study was used as an excuse for inaction on the part of the Senate Subcommittee because the primary finding of the study was that there was no paper ballot system that was ready to be used in real elections. As one TrueVote founder commented:

"Can you imagine how different the legislative would have been if there had been a real study on how to implement voter verified paper ballots, and that study included precinct based optical scan.  The conclusion would have been: the least expensive, most reliable and most widely used method of having a voter verified paper ballot is precinct-based optical scan.  Maryland would have realized they had bought a lemon and should stop throwing good tax payer dollars into a system that cannot do an independent, transparent recount." 


Thus, the flawed premise of the study, put forward by the SBE and not challenged by the researchers, produced misleading results -- that there was no way to have an effective voter verified paper ballot.

The survey of voters found that 20% thought that their votes had not been recorded accurately, and 69% of Maryland voters wanted a paper trail.  Professor Norris, who headed the study team, testified that this did not show a crisis in confidence, I have to disagree.  The fact that two out of 10 voters did not have confidence in the system is a very high level of lack of confidence. Elections are often decided by a few percentages of votes so this level of confidence can lead to a lack of confidence in the result. Further, the fact that by more than two to one Maryland voters wanted a paper trail should have been highlighted to legislators not buried by the researcher.  When this data was presented to the Education Health and Environmental affairs committee those numbers were relatively ignored.  Rather the surveyors focused their study on the numbers of people who found the Touchscreens to be user friendly.
 
The Relationship Between The Researchers and the SBE

    Many in TrueVoteMD, including myself, also saw the relationship between the State Board of Elections and the University of Maryland as “too close for comfort”.  First, these studies were solely funded by the SBE.  Did the researchers point out to SBE that the premise of the study was flawed because it omitted the most widely used method of voter verified paper ballots? Or did they remain silent? If so, why?  Were the researchers aware of the SBE's preference for paperless touch screen voting on Diebold's voting system? 

My second concern is the ongoing relationship between the SBE and the research team. We learned before the study was released that the SBE and UMBC would be working together long term on this issue.  Later we found out that the University was planning on starting a national center to study voting issues, which would get project funding from the SBE.  Don Norris mentioned this center several times during his testimony as early as December.  This developing relationship concerns me when it comes to the idea of keeping the study non-bias.  Could a conflict of interest come up where future projects are being proposed before the current study was done?

Comments
We could have used some honest research
Written by kzeese on 2006-04-17 16:59:35
It is too bad that Norris allowed his research to be politicized and manipulated by the SBE. As it turns out the legislative session moved strongly toward precinct-based optical scan systems --much moreso than TrueVoteMDers expected before the session started.  
 
Norris should have said to the SBE that the most widely used method of voter verified paper ballots (precint-based optical scans) should be included in the study. And, he could have added, this will be less expensive for Maryland than maintaining the Diebold contract. This would have resulted in a study that was actually useful to informing the legislature rather than misleading the legislature. The result would have been that precint-based optical scan is the best system available. 
 
What a shame that Norris allowed his research center to be used as a lobbying tool by Lamone rather than standing up for real independent research. 
 
If Norris is reading this I hope he will comment and explain whether any of his team raised the issue of optical scans and what was the result? If they did not raise it, why not? Did they realize they were being used as a lobbying tool? It seemed obvious to us as soon as we saw that optical scan was not included.  
 
Kevin

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!

< Prev   Next >
 
 


Buy Cool
Take Action
  1. Maryland Deserves Verifiable Voting in 2010
  2. TAKE ACTION FOR PAPER BALLOTS
  3. Make Maryland a Democracy Leader
Login
Username

Password

Remember me
Forgotten your password?
No account yet? Create one

'TrueVoteMD' - 2842 N. Calvert St. - Baltimore, MD 21218 - 443-708-8360
a project of The Campaign for Fresh Air & Clean Politics

medicine-area.com