What's More Important: Accurate Elections Or Fast Results?
from the accuracy-is-overrated dept
As the debate continues over e-voting machines, we're seeing some more misplaced whining over attempts to make elections more fair and accurate. In San Francisco, election officials are complaining about the rules set by California's secretary of state, which will mean that this year's mayoral election ballots will need to be checked and counted by hand. Effectively, that means that results for the election won't be known for a few weeks -- rather than instantly. This leads to all sorts of whining and complaining from election officials about how unfair this is -- but since when should speedy results be more important than accurate vote counts? And, the problem is not the secretary of state at all (as the election officials imply). It's because of two separate e-voting firms who refused to take the necessary steps to make sure their machines could be properly reviewed.First, there's Election Systems and Software (ES&S) makers of buggy e-voting machines (that they admitted in internal memos) that have been known to lose votes or count them in triplicate depending on the election. San Francisco currently uses ES&S machines to count ballots, but those machines don't work very well -- especially if the voter isn't using exactly the right type of pen or pencil. When the secretary of state demanded that ES&S allow outside security experts to examine their machines and software, the company refused to allow it, and then finally gave in, well past the deadline, and included an angry petulent letter threatening the secretary of state. This, despite the fact that the company was caught providing uncertified equipment for the last election. With all that baggage, is it any wonder that the secretary of state would ask for a more thorough method of counting the votes?
The second e-voting firm, Sequoia, was chosen by San Francisco as a replacement vendor to get rid of the questionable ES&S machines. Of course, Sequoia has its own share of problems. Last year it was revealed that there was a button on the machines that would put the machine into "manual" mode and let you vote multiple times. Sequoia claimed this button was a feature. Reasonably, San Francisco's board of supervisors requested that Sequoia hand over their software to be reviewed -- a request which Sequoia refused. Thus, the board rejected the contract... leaving everyone in the situation they're in today. So, while elections officials may complain about the rules for counting votes, it's not the secretary of state they should blame, but the e-voting companies who continue to stonewall when it comes to actually making sure their machines are secure and accurate. And, in the meantime, can someone explain to elections officials that their job is to conduct fair and accurate elections, rather than elections with quick results?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, e-voting
Companies: es&s
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Weeks for a manual count ?
In France, vote are always manual, and the results are always obtained (if there's no irregularity) during the night. Accurate, fast. Of course it relies on the goodwill of citizen. But isn't that the very definition of citizen to take interest in the conduct of your democracy ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Balance
I mean, aren't elections done a long time (months) before anyone will take office for exactly this reason?
So what's the problem?
This "instant gratification" attitude needs to chill.
To give an analogy, I'd rather my bypass surgery was done accurately, but not so slowly that I die on the table.
(SF resident; voted for Matt. But was willing to give Newsome a chance until he boinked a woman married to someone else. Uncool in the extreme. SF politics blows but it's still one of the best cities to live in.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
giving to just one or the other is a false concession that is not neccessary. Things could be timely if our politicians weren't douches and enacted things to increase accuracy and speed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suggested Viewing; Man of the Year - Robin William
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weeks!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Weeks for a manual count ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Although, in all honesty - I think the vote's pretty much a compromised farce anymore.
On the plus side, all the greedy political bastards are the same, so if a machine elects the wrong one, what possible difference could it make. There are no Democrats and Republicans, just winners and losers.
hehe, I agree 100%
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about fast and accurate?
Or is half an hours too long to wait?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doesn't matter.
The mere fact that I'd prefer accuracy means that 20 other people in my area would prefer fast. I mean just look at our news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vote by mail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Weeks!?
We should do this in the US, too, but we have a fascination with technology, thinking that it will always make things better.
Merrill's Law: There are no technological solutions to social problems.
-- Douglas Merrill, Technology Director, Google
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speed is only important to those who think self gratification is the purpose of life, like politicians. In reality, there is no requirement for speed of outcome in elections. When it comes to the Presidential election, if there is a tie, it goes to the House of Representatives for resolution which literally could take weeks (and it has in the past).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How hard can it be?
It's not like it can be the most advanced piece of software in them, and hardly much more advanced than a webpage "click counter".
[ link to this | view in thread ]