|
|
|
|
|
Talking Points: Examining Maryland Options |
Examining Maryland Options
Below
are talking points that show why the optical scan system is the best
option for a voter verified paper record. Print out the PDF version and
take it with you when you meet with your legislators. Leave a copy of
it with them as well.
PDF
Version (This is
a two page document. Print on both sides to use as a leaflet.)
Voter-Verified Paper
Trails: Examining Maryland’s Options
Maryland voters overwhelmingly favor a paper record of each vote, which
the voter can examine for accuracy, to serve as the official ballot
used in recounts and routine audits of the voting equipment.*
So which kind of paper record would be best for Maryland?
OPTION 1: Add a printer to our
current touch-screen machines
Our current voting machines (Diebold Accuvote TS) were not designed
with printers, so there is no easy, inexpensive way to add printers to
them. Diebold has developed a prototype, but the machines would have to
be extensively fitted with equipment that has not yet been certified or
manufactured. There would not be enough time to do this before the
primary election in March 2008. Adding a printer to each voting machine
we now use would double the amount of equipment that would have to be
maintained, repaired, replaced, transported to and from polling sites,
and stored between elections, which would be costly and labor-intensive.
OPTION 2: Replace our current
machines with a newer model that has a paper trail
Diebold has a newer model touch-screen machine (Accuvote TSX), but the
printers have proven to be riddled with problems. The printers print on
continuous rolls of thermal paper. Many voters have difficulty reading
the printouts, which are printed in very small type and are kept behind
a plastic shield. In its 2006 primary election, Cuyahoga County, OH
discovered a 10% difference between the paper print-outs and the
electronic records of the votes due to the paper jamming, tearing,
misprinting, or being incorrectly loaded in the printers. Federal
regulations are likely to limit or curtail the use of this type of
voting equipment in the near future.
In addition to its unreliability, this option is by far the most
expensive way to vote. Because of the extra time needed for each voter
to print and check the paper print-out—and if necessary, to cancel and
correct it—thousands of additional machines would be needed to prevent
long wait times at peak voting hours, which would cost several million
dollars. The purchase and operating costs of this system would be
significantly higher than replacing our current system with
precinct-based optical scanners.
OPTION 3: Replace our
touch-screen machines with precinct-based optical scanners
In replacing our current equipment, we should consider carefully which
voting system would be the most reliable and cost-effective in the long
term. Most experts recommend paper ballots marked by the voter, either
by hand or with the aid of a ballot-marking device for disabled voters,
and then counted by optical scanners in each polling place. The
original ballot is retained for audits and recounts. Upcoming changes
in federal regulations are not likely to affect this type of voting
equipment.
Purchase and operating costs are far lower for a precinct-based optical
scan voting system than for touch-screen voting machines with printers
because only one optical-scanner and one ballot-marking device for
voters with disabilities are needed in each precinct, as compared to
about ten touch-screen machines per precinct. Almost half of Americans
currently vote this way, and a growing number of elections
administrators are choosing to change over to this highly reliable,
fiscally responsible solution. Last March, 56% of Maryland voters
surveyed by Gonzales Research favored switching to an optical scan
voting system, while only 41% preferred voting on touch-screen machines.
*A
survey of Maryland voters conducted by the Maryland Institute for
Policy
Analysis and Research at UMBC (Norris et al, 2006) found that “69% said
that voters
should be able to confirm their votes through paper records or
receipts.”
Touch-screens with Printers or
Optical Scanners - Which is better for Maryland?
| Touch-Screen
Machines with Paper Trail Printers |
Precinct-Based
Optical Scanners |
Pluses
Some voters like the touch-screen interface and feel they are a modern,
“high-tech” way to vote.
Some voters may be able to see
how their votes were recorded (if
they are able to read the print-out and remember to check it).
There may be a paper trail to
use for audits and recounts (if the
equipment is operating correctly).
Minuses
Adding printers to our current voting machines would not be possible in
time for the 2008 elections.
Replacing our current machines with a newer model that has a paper
trail would be expensive, and the printers have major problems (see
below).
Touch-screen voting machines require about 10 times more equipment than
optical scanners, so annual operating costs are significantly higher.
Machine shortages at peak voting hours create long wait times,
increasing the likelihood of voters leaving without voting.
Continuous-roll printers are highly susceptible to paper jams and may
violate the secrecy of the ballot because they make it possible to see
the order in which the votes were cast on the machine.
Thermal print-outs are not durable enough to serve as the legal record
of a vote. They smear, fade, discolor or disappear quickly. They are
also fragile, easily torn, and cannot withstand the repeated handling
necessary for audits and recounts.
The paper record is difficult to read. Type is small and visible only
through a glass shield susceptible to glare. Many voters do not take
the time to proofread carefully, especially when voting lines are long.
Long, continuous-roll records are extremely difficult to audit or
recount.
|
Pluses
Optical scanning systems are significantly less expensive to operate than
touch-screens.
The electronic machine is used only to count the votes, so usually only
one machine is needed per
precinct.
The voter marks the ballot directly, whether by hand or with an
assistive device, so the original
record of the voter’s intent is
available for audits and recounts.
Disabled voters can use a
ballot-marking device or telephone-based interface that enables them to
mark a ballot compatible with an optical-scan system.
During peak voting hours,
the number of voters who can vote
simultaneously is limited only by the amount of space available in the
polling place to mark a ballot privately. Cardboard privacy screens are
inexpensive and easy to store and transport.
Equipment failure does not
prevent voters from casting ballots, because
they can be stored for counting later if necessary.
Absentee,
provisional, and regular voters all use the same ballots.
Audits and recounts are easier
to perform than with continuous-roll thermal printers.
The greater durability and legibility of paper ballots makes them more
suitable as legal evidence of voters’ intent for audits and recounts
and better qualifies them to meet the federal
law requiring that voting
records be stored for 22 months after a federal election.
56% of MD voters polled would
prefer to use an optical scan system, compared to 41% who favor
our current touch-screen machines.
Minuses
More paper ballots need to be printed than are already required for
absentee, provisional, and emergency ballots.
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
