*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** It is happening right now at: http://www.house.gov/science/ Also note: http://www.vote.caltech.edu/ http://www.reformelections.org/ I found this from <http://www.politicabs.com> under their link to "Academic Events" link to <http://www.chronicle.com/events/>. Good stuff. Steven Clift Democracies Online Detail: http://www.house.gov/science/full/may22/full_charter_052201.htm COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, DC 20515 Improving Voting Technologies: The Role of Standards Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon 2318 Rayburn House Office Building I. Purpose As a result of the 2000 presidential election, Congress has undertaken a review to implement significant election reforms. As Congress considers legislation to reform the voting process, a number of issues have emerged as part of the debate, such as whether changes are needed in the voting technologies used in the United States, and what should be the appropriate federal role. As part of this congressional review, the House Science Committee is examining the role of standards in improving voting technologies. On May 22, 2001, the Committee will convene a hearing to ascertain the problems of our current election system and to explore potential solutions. The issues to be addressed at the hearing include: (1) What problems have been identified in the various voting systems used throughout the United States? (2) Which of these problems can be addressed by developing or improving standards for voting equipment? What kinds of standards need to be developed or improved, and why? (3) What different types of research, testing, or data-collecting activities are necessary in order to develop effective voting standards? (4) What are the major concerns, such as computer security, auditability, accountability, testing, certification, and accreditation, for new voting technologies? II. Background A. General Background: Reports of problems in Florida and elsewhere in the nation during the 2000 election raised concerns about specific failures of voting technologies. One focus of current debate is whether more rigorous standards can provide useful guidance to elections officials. After election day, the media focused attention on specific problems with punch card voting. In the months since then, however, broader questions have arisen about error rates, costs, counting standards, and other issues with all types of voting technologies. In the 1980s, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) began developing voluntary standards for computer-based voting systems (see http://www.fec.gov/ elections.html). Thirty-two states have now adopted all or parts of those standards, which were issued in 1990. However, the FEC standards have many critics, who consider them to be inadequate, suggesting that national standards must be expanded in scope to address factors such as ballot design, election management, and voter error. Solutions are likely to consider such diverse factors as cost, speed, accuracy, security, reduction in voter errors, and ease of use. B. Voting Technologies Used in the Last Election: In the past election cycle, there were five different types of voting technologies in use around the country: Hand-counted ballots, mechanical lever machines, computer-tabulated punchcards, computer-tabulated optical scan ballots, and computer-based direct recording electronic (DRE) systems. Across the country, punchcard systems were the most common, used by about one-third of registered voters, while optical scan systems were used by about one-quarter. The following is a description of each of the five types of voting technologies: 1. Paper Ballots. The oldest technology, paper ballots are still used in about 3% of precincts, mostly in rural areas. Paper ballots are counted manually. The percentage of voters using paper ballots has declined by half since 1992. 2. Lever Machines. First introduced in 1892, lever machines have no document ballot. Instead, a voter enters the voting booth and chooses candidates listed on a posted ballot by pulling a lever for each candidate choice. The votes are recorded by a counting mechanism in the back of the machine, eliminating the need to count ballots manually. Instead, poll workers read the numbers recorded by the counters. Since there is no document ballot, recounts and audits are limited to review of totals recorded by each machine. Write-in votes must be recorded on separate document ballots. About 22% of precincts currently use lever machines. That percentage has declined substantially since 1992 and is expected to continue to decrease because the machines are no longer manufactured, although parts are still available. 3. Punchcards. The first technological approach utilizing computers to count votes was the punchcard system, introduced in 1964. In this system, considered among the most economical and efficient, especially for jurisdictions with large populations, the voter records choices by punching holes in appropriate locations on a paper computer card that is later fed into a computer reader to record the vote. The computer card serves as the document ballot on which the votes are recorded. As with other document ballots, punchcards can be manually recounted and audited. There are two basic types of punchcard systems: * VotoMatic type: A voter is given a ballot printed with numbered boxes, each box corresponding to a particular ballot choice printed in a booklet attached to the voting maching. The voter slips the card into the "throat" of the voting machine, where it rests on a set of rubber strips under the ballot book, and uses a simple stylus to punch out the chad for the box(es) corresponding to the candidate(s) chosen for each race or other item on the ballot. Turning a page in the booklet exposes another set of boxes on the card, corresponding to another set of ballot choices. This was the kind of system used in Palm Beach County, Florida. Write-in choices are not placed on the card itself but are written elsewhere, such as on the envelope in which the card is placed. About 33% of precincts use this type of system, the most widely used voting technology at present. The number of voters using the system has declined since 1992, and that decline is expected to continue. * DataVote type: A voter punches holes next to the names of candidates or other ballot choices that are printed on the cards themselves – there is no ballot book. The voter places the ballot card in a voting apparatus that has a stapler-like punching mechanism on a slide. Write-in votes can be placed directly on the card. About 4% of precincts use the Datavote system, and usage of this system has also declined. 4. Optical Scan. This technology, which is also known as a “marksense” or “bubble” ballot system,has been used for decades in scoring standardized tests and first appeared for use in voting in the 1980’s. In this system a voter, using a paper form and an appropriate writing instrument, darkens in a box or oval or completes an arrow corresponding to each candidate choice. A computerized device that senses and records the marks then scans the completed ballot. Write-in votes can be placed directly on the ballot. About 25% of precincts use marksense voting systems. The percentage of voters using this technology has almost doubled since 1992, and that increase is likely to continue. 5. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting. This technology, first introduced in the 1970’s, is an electronic version of the lever voting machine, in which a voter’s choice is recorded not on paper or a by a mechanical counter, but electronically by the computer. Depending on the equipment used, the ballot may be printed and posted on the voting machine, or it may be displayed on a computer screen. Voters make their choices by pushing a button, touching the screen or key pad, or using some other device. The voter submits those choices before leaving the booth, for example by pushing a "vote" button, and the votes are directly stored in a computer memory device such as a removable disk or nonvolatile memory circuit. If the voting equipment has a keyboard, write-in votes can be recorded electronically, otherwise, they must be recorded separately on a document. DRE systems have often been considered the most expensive (except perhaps for lever machines), but they are also arguably the most adaptable, with the greatest potential for speed. About 7% of precincts use DRE voting systems. Like the marksense systems, the percentage of voters using DRE has almost doubled since 1992 and is expected to continue to increase. The following table indicates the types of voting technologies and the incidence of their use in the U.S. in 1998. Types of Voting Technologies Used in the United States, 1998 Percentage Using Voting Document Computer-Assisted c Number of Method Method Ballot? Tabulation? Counties Voters a Precincts Paper ballot Yes No 410 1.6% 2.9% Lever machine No No 480 18.6% 21.8% Punch Cards: Votomatic Yes Yes 578 31.0% 33.4% Datavote Yes Yes 57 3.3% 4.0% Marksense Yes Yes 1,217 27.3% 24.7% Electronic No Yes 257 9.1% 7.3% Mixed system b - - 141 9.1% 5.9% Source: Numbers are from Election Data Services, "1998 Voting Equipment Study Report," http://www.electiondataservices.com/content/vote_equip.htm, n.d. a Registered voters. b A mixture involving more than one kind of voting technology used in a county. Numbers listed do not reflect the actual percentages of precincts or voters using mixed systems, but rather the percentages of voters registered in and precincts located in counties that Election Data Services has identified as using mixed systems. c Issues related to the integrity of computer systems, including computer security issues, are applicable to voting technologies in which a computer assists vote tabulation. C. Internet Voting: One form of electronic voting currently in development is Internet voting, in which voters make their choices online. Internet voting differs from DRE systems in several ways. First, it is often done using a personal computer rather than a custom-designed voting machine, although such machines can also be used. Second, results are not accumulated at the polling place but are sent to the tabulating computer when cast. Third, results (ballots or counts) are not sent over a direct modem connection or physically transported to the central tabulator, but are sent over the Internet. Those features make Internet voting a promising technology in some ways but pose special challenges for ensuring authentication, secrecy, and security in the voting process. The use of Internet voting is currently limited to demonstration projects. For example, for the November 2000 election, voters in several counties in California cast nonbinding votes online, from online voting machines placed in central locations. In the same election, 84 overseas military personnel cast their actual votes via the Internet through a small pilot project run by the Federal Voter Assistance Program (FVAP). D. Current Standards for Voting: In 1982 Congress directed the FEC to develop national standards for computer based voting systems that states might voluntarily adopt. In 1990, the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) approved FEC’s voluntary standards, which, at the time of the November 2000 elections, had been adopted in whole or part by 32 states, including Florida, although many states (including Florida) grandfathered in technologies introduced before the standards were developed. These standards were developed for both hardware and software and include functional and documentation requirements, performance characteristics, and testing procedures for punchcard, marksense, and DRE systems. The FEC plans to update these standards next year. Some have pointed to the occurrence of Florida’s elections problems despite the state’s adoption of FEC’s standards as evidence that the standards are inadequate. They argue that such standards should be updated to include more robust standards for computer security, integrity, and accuracy of the election process. They also urge that the standards be expanded to include performance-based standards that address voting errors made in real voting situations that arise from such factors as voting machine design, ballot design, and election management (including maintenance). Such standards, for example, could require that a voting system prevent or reduce overvotes, or votes for more than one candidate. Testing of voting equipment is performed at the national level by two independent labs overseen by the Elections Center, the professional association of election officials. These labs test voting machines, according to the vendor’s specifications, to determine if they meet FEC hardware and software standards. Voting machines generally are not tested for their ability to meet performance-based standards under election-like conditions. In addition, while some states require that voting technologies meet requirements beyond those required by the FEC, few states have independent testing laboratories to certify voting equipment. Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has performed research on voting technologies for 30 years, including issuing reports in 1978 and 1988 detailing major problems with punchcard systems and other technologies. NIST’s past voting expertise and ability to conduct standards research has led to proposals for NIST to create thresholds for accuracy, maintenance, and usability of voting systems. NIST has no ongoing role in setting the FEC standards. E. The Response of States, Localities, and Others: The responses of state and local election officials since November have been mixed. While state and local groups have welcomed Federal financial assistance, they have warned Congress about mandating “one-size-fits-all” solutions. For example, the National Association of Secretaries of State adopted a February, 2001, resolution calling for updated, voluntary national standards and federal funding for voting system modernization, among other actions. The National Association of State Election Directors also adopted a resolution in February calling for increased federal funding to develop updated and expanded standards. The National Association of Counties (NACO) and the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Clerks established a National Commission on Election Standards and Reform in November 2000. The Election Center, an association of election and voter registration officials, has established an Elections Reform Task Force to review concerns about election systems and recommend changes. Both groups are currently still deliberating. The National Conference of State Legislatures has also established an Elections Reform Task Force to restore public confidence in state election systems, and is attempting to identify model practices and laws for states to consider. Reform legislation is pending in all 50 states, with more than 1,400 bills introduced in state legislatures this year on a wide range of election reform issues. In December 2000, Florida Governor Jeb Bush established by executive order the bipartisan Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards, and Technology. The task force examined several issues associated with election administration and has issued its recommendations. As a result, Florida recently enacted major election reform legislation that eliminates punchcard ballots. Additionally, the legislation mandated a uniform election ballot design. At least four more states (Georgia, Maryland, Iowa, and Missouri) have proposed adopting a uniform statewide voting system, as well as other election reforms, and several have also proposed adopting systems that help prevent voter error. More than a dozen states have established task forces or other efforts to examine election reform needs, and some have produced recommendations. Also, a privately funded National Commission on Federal Election Reform, cochaired by Presidents Carter and Ford, is examining a wide range of issues relating to voting technology and election administration. The bipartisan Constitution Project has established an Election Reform Initiative to develop consensus about improvements in election administration. And the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are engaged in a joint effort to determine how to improve the performance and reliability of voting systems. III. Witnesses There will be one panel of four witnesses: (1) Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Project Manager of the Caltech-MIT Voting Project. The Voting Project was created in December 2000 to prevent a recurrence of the problems that threatened the 2000 elections. Specific tasks of the project include evaluating the current state of reliability and uniformity of U.S. voting systems, and proposing uniform standards and quantitative guidelines for performance and reliability of voting systems. The Voting Project just completed a March 30, 2001 preliminary assessment of the reliability of existing voting equipment. (2) Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Assistant Professor of Computer Sciences at Bryn Mawr College, is a nationally recognized expert on voting technologies and standards. In October 2000, she successfully defended her Ph.D. thesis, “Electronic Vote Tabulation Checks & Balances.” (3) Dr. Doug Jones, Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Iowa, has served on the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems since 1994, and has chaired the board since the fall of 1999. This board, appointed by the Iowa Secretary of State, must examine and approve all voting machines before they can be offered for sale to county governments. The board meets whenever a manufacturer wishes to offer a new voting machine or a new modification of an existing machine for sale in the state of Iowa. (4) Mr. Roy Saltman is a consultant and a retired employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly, the National Bureau of Standards) who authored the 1988 National Bureau of Standards report, “Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying,” that first raised the difficulties of using punch cards and other machine-readable ballots. He also authored the 1978 National Bureau of Standards study, “Science & Technology: Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying.” ^ ^ ^ ^ Steven L. Clift - W: http://www.publicus.net Minneapolis - - - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota - - - - - T: +1.612.822.8667 USA - - - - - - - ICQ: 13789183 *** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE *** *** To unsubscribe instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE *** *** Please forward this post to others and encourage *** *** them to subscribe to the free DO-WIRE service. ***
