|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
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! |
|
| |
| |
|
|
