New Study Shows Massive Error Rates In E-Voting Machines

from the that-can-swing-an-election dept

Fri, Mar 21st 2008 7:42pm — Mike Masnick

Just as e-voting firm Sequoia is resisting having its machines reviewed independently, the Brookings Institute has put a bunch of e-voting machines to the test, and found error rates around 3% on some of the machines. These weren't errors due to software problems, but usability problems, where the design of the system resulted in people voting for a candidate they did not want. 3% is a huge number, and could easily change the results of an election. While the study found that people generally like e-voting technology, that still doesn't mean it's particularly effective. One other interesting part of the finding: when there was a voter-verified paper trail, it didn't cut down on errors. This suggests that many voters were either confused or didn't even bother to verify their vote. This should all be very worrisome. Even ignoring the technology problems that these machines have been shown to have, the fact that the design tends to create so many mistake votes should lead people to seriously question the use of e-voting machines.

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: e-voting, error rates
Companies: brookings, diebold, es&s, sequoia

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

zcat, 21 Mar 2008 @ 8:30pm

failure rate of paper ballots?
Has a similar study been done on the old 'tick the box' ballot? Perhaps voters are just careless in general..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Guy, 21 Mar 2008 @ 8:31pm

Voter mistakes
If you can't be bothered to be _sure_ of your vote, then you should be barred from voting for life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2008 @ 8:36pm

Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves . . .
As Franklin said:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Same is true in regards to "convienience."

If you don't CARE enough about as something as important as your own vote then you deserve NONE of the benifits of this country.

Especially since your vote doesn't just affect you.

The level of apathy and just general lack of respect and responsibility in this country pains me at times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zcat, 21 Mar 2008 @ 8:38pm

and...
If you can't be bothered to vote (hey, can we talk about the 60-odd % of voters who can't even haul their ass down to a polling booth?) then you should be... umm...

I don't think barring them for life is going to have the desired effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BubbaLove, 21 Mar 2008 @ 8:47pm

I agree with #1, and it's why I'm bothering to comment. I'm no fan of any of the e-voting technology, but I'd hardly say that paper ballots are the answer to this particular problem. If you have trouble using an ATM, chances are that regardless if it's a paper ballot or an e-voting machine, you're probably going to flub something. The error-correction thing is just a piece of the human condition - we're programmed with a little carelessness in mind, because face it, sometimes it's helpful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hellsvilla, 21 Mar 2008 @ 8:58pm

One mans error
One mans "error" is another man's swing vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zcat, 21 Mar 2008 @ 9:10pm

crazy thought here...
Perhaps the error was actually 6%, but 3% of voters couldn't correctly explain to the researchers how they'd intended to vote :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2008 @ 11:03pm

Cut to the chase. Just Let UTX (United Technologies Corp) buy Diebold. We know your pissed at McCain.

Where do the companies come from? What did UTX start?

Your not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chaz, 22 Mar 2008 @ 12:28am

Hmm
So basically when Bush was being re-elected they ignored these problems, but now that Obama is about to win they'll use that 3% to fudge the numbers in Hillary's direction. Or at least that's what I'd do if I was evil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Codename Edinburgh, 22 Mar 2008 @ 12:41am

We'll fix it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 1:04am

LOL after googling "Codename edinburgh" I saw another one of those great Apple viral ads!

Check it out before it goes away:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=334
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill M, 22 Mar 2008 @ 2:14am

Usability
It's hard to imagine that error rates on one brand of e-voting technology is applicable to ALL e-voting. Surely there could be a user interface that would result in even higher error rates. Ergo, you could design one with lower rates. Similarly the paper receipt could be more usable. One thing that you might do is have to enter a confirmation code from the receipt into the machine to verify that you've reviewed the paper copy. The problem is that we don't rigorously review the technology itself enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 5:37am

It seems to me the results show that there is about 3% of the population too stupid to vote. I would have thought that number higher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cutter892, 22 Mar 2008 @ 7:28am

A few different points.
3% error rate? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the usual error rate when you read poll numbers? The fact that 3% of the people who vote are careless enough not to double check what the machine says is kinda sad. Whats worse is the 60% of people who do not vote complain the loudest when things don't go the way they want. To those people I say this, You have no right to complain about anything. If you can't spend a little time to research the cadidates and go vote you have no right to complain about what the government is doing. On the other hand the people who did go and vote have all the right in the world to complain when there elected officals are not doing what they said they woul.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 7:45am

Cutter said:
"3% error rate? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the usual error rate when you read poll numbers?"

Polling error rates are due to the fact that small sample size results are projected upon the entire population, thus predicting an outcome.
In the article, the error rate is measured.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Lake, 22 Mar 2008 @ 7:48am

Electronic Voting Machines
If voter-verified paper trails don't change the results, why would anyone think that traditional paper ballots or voting machine balloting would be any different.

As to the "huge" 3% differential, yes it is huge. But if the mistakes are more or less divided among the different voters and candidates, then it is unlikely to make any difference except in VERY close elections
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 22 Mar 2008 @ 7:54am

Expectations are too high.
Be reasonable. Do you really expect people who CANNOT find the United States on a World Map, to be able to find a candidate on a ballot???

Maybe you could try putting pictures of candidates on e-voting machines? You know, kind of how McDonald's has picture menus for those who cannot read?

Or you might stop pouring billions annually into the education abyss, and thus force back-to-basics, and use savings to improve voting technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 8:04am

Bush really won that election fair and square... He would never cheat!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wmarkh, 22 Mar 2008 @ 8:18am

You say this like it is a bad thing
So what you are saying is that voters who are challenged by something as simple as an voting machine may vote for the wrong candidate? This means the vote will be biased toward the more intelligent party. FINALLY we are getting systems in place to qualify voters!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 8:29am

Enter a check mark here if you do not want this measure to not be disapproved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Adams, 22 Mar 2008 @ 10:09am

Why is this a problem? If this is a user error then statistically it would be spread across all canidates thus in the end it would equal out.

And until you have somthing to compare this too (i.e. the error rates of current voting systems) wh y is this even being discussed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 10:15am

Too much junk on a ballot => higher error rate. D
i suspect the problem also has to do with the sheer volume of things we vote on, in general elections.

for key positions such as governor, senator, and president, there should be only the one position being voted on.

congressmen and initiatives should be on a separate ballot.

a good e-vote w/paper trail solution could make it easier to vote more frequently. And there are some absolutely simple tamper proof e-vote w/paper trail systems. We don't use them, but they exist. The trick is in the paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed B, 22 Mar 2008 @ 10:58am

Voting Machines
Is this a problem with the voting machines or a problem with the voter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed B, 22 Mar 2008 @ 11:01am

Voting Machines
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed B, 22 Mar 2008 @ 11:03am

Voting Machines
Here is an idea. Lets have each voter bring a professional vote-puter-inner and verbally tell the pro whom he wishes to vote for. Then let the pro enter the vote. Shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 weeks to hold an election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Italian Revolutionary, 22 Mar 2008 @ 11:27am

Re: Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .
Actually, the FFs wouldn't be surprised at all: the percentage of qualified voters in the first elections of the newly minted USofA was on the order of 50%. Seems to me that grousing about lackadaisical voters conveniently ignores this. I'm worried that the people who DO show up have access to voting machines or paper ballots or semaphore flags if that's what's passing for voting in their districts. Not enough machines, polling booths, polling places, and dirty-tricks phone calls disenfranchise a measurable number of voters. Whether it's as great as that of inaccurate polling machines, I don't know. But to me it is very worrisome. Garibaldi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse Sheinwald, 22 Mar 2008 @ 12:36pm

Re: Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .
That's Jefferson not Franklin. The statement still holds true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 1:26pm

Re: A few different points.
Whats worse is the 60% of people who do not vote complain the loudest when things don't go the way they want. To those people I say this, You have no right to complain about anything.

The point that you're missing is that those in the %60 who supposed didn't vote really did vote. They voted with their feet for "None of the above". It's not the fault of the voter if there are no candidates worth voting for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 1:35pm

Re:
And until you have somthing to compare this too (i.e. the error rates of current voting systems) wh y is this even being discussed?

Yeah, what he said. Shut up saying bad things about voting machines.

(Disclosure: I own voting machine company stock)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree with cutter892, 22 Mar 2008 @ 1:52pm

Re: A few different points.
On the other hand the people who did go and vote have all the right in the world to complain when there elected officals are not doing what they said they woul.
Only the people who voted for the winning candidate have a right to complain. Losers are just that: losers.

In other words, democrats have no right to complain about republicans in office and vice versa. If you're a democrat we already know you don't like the republican who won the election so just shut up already. You didn't elect him anyway. It was republicans who put him in office and those are the only ones he's obligated to listen to now. If he doesn't do what he said he would that made you vote for him then you, as someone who actually voted for him, have something to complain about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 2:44pm

from above:
"If he doesn't do what he said he would "

Ummm, help me out here ......
I'm trying to recall the last time a politician followed through with what was promised.
All I remember are the (many) times that the opposite happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 3:26pm

New study shows massive error rate in human brains.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funky Al., 22 Mar 2008 @ 3:29pm

Re: Voting Machines
Given that most voters are uninformed of the issues, does it really matter that the vote they cast was not the one they intended to cast?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 7:14pm

Quit complaining about complainers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2008 @ 8:22pm

BULLSHIT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2008 @ 12:09am

Re: Re: A few different points.
no, 95% of the 60% who dont vote just didnt vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chas, 23 Mar 2008 @ 5:32am

Some people are stupid
Some people are too stupid to vote.
Some people are too stupid to drive cars.
Some people are too stupid to operate power tools.
Unfortunatly these people aren't too stupid to reproduce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Frenkel, 23 Mar 2008 @ 5:36am

Voting machine integrtity
Americas democratic infrastructure is arcane and dangerously vulnerable to fraud and criminal interference. Take a look at the TV program at www.independentvoices.net which covers the vast disparity between exit polls and the official results in 2004. This all adds up to a need for radical reform of the mechanics of elections in America,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2008 @ 8:18am

And so now we have proof that the electoral college is actually needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 23 Mar 2008 @ 8:46am

There is no perfect system
After the 2000 election, and again leading up to the Gray Davis recall election, many invoked the sanctity of the vote as the reason we had to overhaul the election system, lest anyone be "disenfranchised." Studies of paper ballots indicated error rates between 2% and 4%. The issue is not technology. Systems dependent on the uncoordinated actions of many people are inherently error-prone. Voting, which is inherently individualistic, is no exception. The best we can do is have back-up plans, such as recounts and paper records, for those occasions where the original vote is within around 5%. These backup plans will have their own errors. No system will guarantee a result acceptable to all where the count is within 500 votes out of millions, ala Florida 2000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mac, 23 Mar 2008 @ 9:22am

This just in...
"Another new study shows that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population. ( +/- 3% error rate )."

Seriously, what a crock of BS this is. This 3% error rate is obviously human error. Even the article states that.

"These weren't errors due to software problems, but usability problems, where the design of the system resulted in people voting for a candidate they did not want."

The design of paper ballots causes the same issue. It's not the voting machine, IT'S THE VOTER. I hate press that insinuates there are problems with the electronic voting machines, such as the title of this article does.

Harumph!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SilverWolf, 23 Mar 2008 @ 10:32am

Re: Re: A few different points.
Actually the opposite is true, if you voted to elect the SOB then you have no right to complain when he screws the country over.

After all, you are the one who put him in office, not the people who voted for the other guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 23 Mar 2008 @ 10:45am

Man, if they Republicans cheat again in 2008, this is the way to do it! Third time is a charm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 23 Mar 2008 @ 11:23am

3% is an improvement!
The 3% error rate for e-voting is an improvement over paper voting. I recall previous studies of paper voting resulting in error rates as high as 5%.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wm. Stover, 23 Mar 2008 @ 11:32am

eVote
Did the total equal the Summation? Rumors are that totlization resultws in even reater errors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2008 @ 11:35am

So, what some of you are saying is the easily hacked, no verification, take it home to play with voting machines are A-ok with you because the errors are human and not machine.

Am I the only one that has a problem with this ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 23 Mar 2008 @ 12:25pm

No less perfect than paper ballots!
Come on Mike. It seems to me that a 3% margin of error is no worse than with paper ballots. I'm willing to bet that the error was even higher than that during certain 'paper' elections. Can you say "Hanging Chad", "Pregnant Chad". Voters have always had trouble with voting systems, regardless of being paper or electronic. If 3% is enough to stop using electronic systems, then perhaps we should just stop voting until we have a "perfect" system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cutter892, 23 Mar 2008 @ 12:31pm

Multiple replies
Instead of doing a bunch of different replies I'm just going to do it in one post.
First not voting is voting: This is bull what a lot of people are looking for is the "perfect candidate". There is no such thing. Yes there are people that we may agree with on a lot of things but not everything. Not voting is being lazy. Sometimes its just better to vote for the person you think you agree with the most and holding that persons feet to the fire when you don't If nothing else if possible run yourself if you are elegible.

Second: Winners/loosers can't complain: Yes both can. Because those who voted for the winner can complain when said person doesn't follow through on what they say. Those who lost can still complain because they at least tried to get the person they wanted elected and will continue to make there points to the people (if the listen) and try and get things to change.

I think the biggest problem are country is facing right now is that there are only two parties involved. Are founding fathers I don't think intended for this to happen but it has. I think though as more and more people become disillsioned with either party I can see one or more parties rising to power. Which wouldn't be a bad thing it would mean people would have to do more reasearch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Revolutionary Italian, 23 Mar 2008 @ 1:38pm

Re: Multiple replies
Actually, the FFs, for the most part, wanted NO parties.

"Faction" or "parties" indicated that representatives were not acting with virtue, i.e. they did not have the best interests of the Commonwealth, but rather were governed by their own private views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2008 @ 2:51pm

I worry about Hillary's massive error rates in recalling the truth. Do you?

Hillary in Tuzla: The Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire (TRAILER)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2008 @ 3:46pm

Revolutionary Italian said:
.... but rather were governed by their own private views.

and their fears were warranted.
I suppose you could say this is a representative government, however it is not the will of the people that is being represented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bah who needs one, 23 Mar 2008 @ 4:23pm

Not strictly related, but ...

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19248375&postID=5418832287881365472&page=1

That whole blog needs serious checking out by Masnick & co. -- not only have we got the usual misunderstanding of business models here, right down to the nonsense phrase "steal content", but a serious control-freak attitude in general that, if widely adopted by web site operators, would doom web 3.0 and destroy most of the value of the existing web, as well as locking in a small search engine oligopoly of only the existing big search companies.

Of course, they're also openly advocating cloaking different content to search engines than gets shown to humans, which would make the search engines utterly worthless to users anyway as what they found and linked to would no longer bear any reliable correspondence to what the user actually searched for.

A Techdirt article specifically on how it's both evil and stupid to try to completely lock down one's web site seems to be overdue. :)

On the topic, it's worth noting that Sequoia has been intimidating third-party reviewers of its machines and source code with specious threats of copyright-infringement lawsuits, and claiming falsely that simply describing the behavior of its machines could infringe copyright.

This kind of copyright misuse needs to be stopped, whether by Sequoia or by J. Random Webmaster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
evan, 24 Mar 2008 @ 4:08am

Re: and...
They're not voters if they're not voting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xyzzy, 24 Mar 2008 @ 4:49am

It's not the bolt that holds the engine; it's the nut that holds the wheel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 24 Mar 2008 @ 6:44am

The errors aren't important though. What is important is that politicians have control over those who have control of the databases and manufacture of this machine.

Why do people go on and on about these 'problems' with voting machines like it's some issue with 'fairness'? The problems aren't a concern of those in charge - being able to manipulate the vote is the core concern and I'm sure they work quite well for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 24 Mar 2008 @ 7:29am

My solution
It's simple, each person votes TWICE. Once
to vote and once to verify their vote.

If the votes don't match a trap door drops
open and they fall onto the rotating knives
to be flushed into the sewer system.

Voters would tend to be more careful and
those incapable would be culled.

MWUAH HA HA HA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jotteth; The ParkerDid You and Will You try Write-, 24 Mar 2008 @ 9:50am

Write-In Vote Tabulation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2008 @ 10:04am

Re: Multiple replies
First not voting is voting: This is bull what a lot of people are looking for is the "perfect candidate". There is no such thing. Yes there are people that we may agree with on a lot of things but not everything. Not voting is being lazy.
It's not about looking for a "perfect candidate". It's about there being no candidate that's even acceptable. That's a big difference. There is no reason people should put their voter "stamp of approval" on some unacceptable party lackey just to satisfy the likes of you. What you have people do otherwise, go to the polls and then just turn around leave without voting for anyone? That's just plain STUPID. No, refusing to vote for an unacceptable candidate isn't lazy; it's the patriotic duty of every good citizen. If there's someone a person does want to vote for, they'll generally find their way to the poll to do so.

Because those who voted for the winner can complain when said person doesn't follow through on what they say. Those who lost can still complain because they at least tried to get the person they wanted elected and will continue to make there points to the people (if the listen) and try and get things to change.
Every citizen has a right to complain. You need to read the US constitution sometime my fascist little friend. It's covered by things like the right to petition the government and freedom of speech. Those rights are not limited, as you would seem to like, to those who can prove that they voted for one of the officially offered candidates in the last election. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. And while you might like for everyone who won't play your game to just "shut up", that's not the way it works either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Leahy, 14 Apr 2008 @ 4:04pm

Re: Re: Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .
Sheinwald, where are you? Write jrleahy@excite.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]