Palm Beach County Lost 3,400 Votes; Claims Different Sequoia Scanners Count Differently
from the are-they-serious? dept
For all the trouble surrounding e-voting, some folks believe that optical scan technologies that simply count the paper ballot votes are a decent solution. Of course, those optical scan technologies are often made by the same companies that make the e-voting equipment, and have been shown to have numerous problems going back many years. And, as per usual with these e-voting companies, they've been highly resistant to independent inspection of the systems. Perhaps that's because the machines can't do the one thing they're supposed to do properly: count the votes.Down in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, the home of the infamous 2000 election year "butterfly ballot" with its hanging chads), officials are admitting that they've somehow lost about 3,400 ballots. But they don't seem to be saying they physically lost the ballots -- they're saying that the optical scan machines, provided by Sequoia Voting Systems (no stranger to e-voting counting problems) count the ballots differently when the same ballots are run through different machines. In trying to explain how come a "recount" showed 3,400 fewer ballots than the original count, a county official explained:
The seven high-speed tabulating machines used in the recount are much more "unforgiving" than those that process votes on election dayDoes that not seem highly problematic to people? Isn't part of the point of these optical scan machines that they'll count the ballots consistently? If everyone seems to admit that there's an element of near total randomness (chalked up to how "unforgiving" the machines are) in these machines, isn't that reason enough to question their usage at all? As for the election in question, it appears that officials have decided to throw up their hands at the controversy and certify the election, despite the fact that this "unforgiving" recount changed the results of the election. Update: Well, now officials are claiming that it wasn't a technology problem but that they simply didn't feed ballots into the machine. That's not particularly comforting either -- and it's still troublesome that they would suggest that machines would count the votes differently in the first place.
![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: counting, e-voting, optical scan, palm beach county
Companies: sequoia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lazyness and Incompetence
This country needs to step back and take a look at what it has become. There aren't any true patriots anymore, just people that want things their way and given to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lazyness and Incompetence
And the "problem" here is how you count where a person partially fills out a selection or has more than 1 selection filled out to some extent. Thus, derivations of the "hanging chad" idea. You can either throw them all out or try to guess as best you can on each, both are issues that can affect the solution if the percentages are close enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speechless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Audit, Audit, Audit
A major advantage of the marked paper ballots is that they CAN be audited. A pure touch screen system cannot. Even a touch screen with a hardcopy cannot be fully audited.
It is hard to understand why they would be having such a problem with this. Obviously one (or both) of the systems is not reading accurately. They ought to be able to sit some people down (they can probably get volunteers) and manually count a set of ballots. Each ballot should be counted by two or three humans. Compare the manual counts with the counts that the humans got. This should show where the problem lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to me the idea that counting by hand, as opposed to using a computer, is the way to achieve the smallest margin of error is just counter intuitive? I think it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when America can’t even make a computer that can count anymore . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course! Read what I wrote above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Excellent point I hadnt considered . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i might have a solution
seems to me my solution would give more accurate results that those optical scans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, my old school when I was 9 had an automated register system. Your name was on a piece of paper, and the teacher coloured in a little square next to it (one square for each day of the week), and the register was quickly scanned and bam, you instantly have the full week's worth of who was absent and who wasn't.
It's hard to believe that an automated system as important as a vote counter, and as simple as *scanning an X in a box*, can be so fallible. It's like they didn't go with the lowest bidder, they actually kicked some guy's door down and ordered him to make a vote counter from scratch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OCR vs 'mark in box'
This should be trivially easy, and almost 100% consistent no matter what machine does it. Someone has screwed up big-time here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OCR vs 'mark in box'
High speed paper handling is anything but trivial.
Especially paper that people have had their grubby
mits all over.
Personally I'd be willing to wait for a more
accurate count.
What would be an acceptable error in percent of
votes counted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
School Tests
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Is Exactly What Politicians Want!
Think about it: The second we find a tested system that is secure, accurate, and easy to use 100% of the time, the big 2 parties in this country will no longer be able to fight anything in court. If this machine is 100% correct all the time, that would mean that the person who the citizens voted for would actually win with no chance to manipulate the system... and that cannot happen in the Dems and Republicans view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purple Thumb
I want my ballot to be on paper with my thumb dipped in purple to show that I have voted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]