The image “http://www.votetrustusa.org/images/votetrust-small2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!

   

Discerning Voter Intent in the Minnesota Recount PDF  | Print |  Email
By Ed Felten, Princeton University   
November 22, 2008
This article was posted at Ed Felten's Freedom-to-Tinker Blog and is reposted here with permission.

Minnesota election officials are hand-counting millions of ballots, as they perform a full recount in the ultra-close Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Minnesota Public Radio offers a fascinating gallery of ballots that generated disputes about voter intent.

A good example is this one:



A scanning machine would see the Coleman and Franken bubbles both filled, and call this ballot an overvote. But this might be a Franken vote, if the voter filled in both slots by mistake, then wrote "No" next to Coleman's name.

Other cases are more difficult, like this one:



Do we call this an overvote, because two bubbles are filled? Or do we give the vote to Coleman, because his bubble was filled in more completely?


Then there's this ballot, which is destined to be famous if the recount descends into ligitation:


[Insert your own joke here.]

This one raises yet another issue:



Here the problem is the fingerprint on the ballot. Election laws prohibit voters from putting distinguishing marks on their ballots, and marked ballots are declared invalid, for good reason: uniquely marked ballots can be identified later, allowing a criminal to pay the voter for voting "correctly" or punish him for voting "incorrectly". Is the fingerprint here an identifying mark? And if so, how can you reject this ballot and accept the distinctive "Lizard People" ballot?

Many e-voting experts advocate optical-scan voting. The ballots above illustrate one argument against opscan: filling in the ballot is a free-form activity that can create ambiguous or identifiable ballots. This creates a problem in super-close elections, because ambiguous ballots may make it impossible to agree on who should have won the election.

Wearing my pure-scientist hat (which I still own, though it sometimes gets dusty), this is unsurprising: an election is a measurement process, and all measurement processes have built-in errors that can make the result uncertain. This is easily dealt with, by saying something like this: Candidate A won by 73 votes, plus or minus a 95% confidence interval of 281 votes. Or perhaps this: Candidate A won with 57% probability. Problem solved!

In the real world, of course, we need to declare exactly one candidate to be the winner, and a lot can be at stake in the decision. If the evidence is truly ambiguous, somebody is going to end up feeling cheated, and the most we can hope for is a sense that the rules were properly followed in determining the outcome.

Still, we need to keep this in perspective. By all reports, the number of ambiguous ballots in Minnesota is miniscule, compared to the total number cast in Minnesota. Let's hope that, even if some individual ballots don't speak clearly, the ballots taken collectively leave no doubt as to the winner.

Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
You must login to see comments...
< Prev   Next >
2005-06-02 10:55:21Joan Krawitz, Executive DirectorVoteTrustUSA National Leadership Workshop & Strategy Session for e-Voting Reform Leaders
2005-08-21 19:16:37Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified VotingCounty-Level Strategies for Paper Ballot/Optical Scan Adoption
2005-08-29 14:05:12VoteTrustUSAVoteTrustUSA Statement of Principles
2005-09-07 13:46:53Green Institute, Liberty Tree Foundation, and Fairvote Announce Panel on the Crisis of U.S. Election
2005-10-31 00:18:52Marybeth Kuznik, VotePANot Just a Bunch of Little Old Ladies: The Importance of Becoming a Pollworker
2005-11-28 13:51:16Pat Clark, The Center for Civic Participation and Everybody VOTEPennsylvania: Activists work with Allegheny County on Voting Machine Evaluation Process
2005-12-15 10:16:23Media Release from ACORNACORN Defeats Anti-Voter Legal Attacks
2005-12-24 15:44:50Susan Pynchon, Executive Director, Florida Fair Elections CoalitionHoliday Poem for Voter Activists
2005-12-29 15:59:05Joan Krawitz, Executive Director, VoteTrustUSAAction Alert: Say No To Prohibited Software in Voting Machines!
2005-12-30 14:00:11VoteTrustUSAOpen Letter to the Election Assistance Commission
2006-01-12 15:25:45Verified Voting FoundationVerified Voting Announces New President and CEO
2006-01-16 13:53:06Tara Blomquist, NC Coalition for Verified VotingThe Story of North Carolina's Fight for Voter Verified Elections
2006-01-30 17:11:02Kindra MuntzSarasota Alliance for Fair ElectionsFlorida: County Petition Drive For Verifiable Elections
2006-02-23 16:34:58VoteTrustUSAI Count Coalition Announces DC Lobby Days In Support of HR 550
2006-04-25 17:55:50John Gideon, votersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSAFile a HAVA Complaint
2006-04-25 22:26:06Sean Flaherty, Iowans for Voting IntegrityReport on VoteTrustUSA Workshop
2006-05-06 09:46:09Pamela Haengel, President, Voting Integrity Alliance, Tampa BayOne Voice. One Vote. (An Ode to the Struggle)
2006-06-16 00:00:00VoteTrustUSAWatch VoteTrustUSA on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight
2006-07-30 13:50:59Mary Howe KiralyDo Americans Get the Election System We Deserve?
2006-09-23 14:47:19Pollworkers for DemocracyOver 1,400 Sign Up For New "Pollworkers For Democracy" Project In First Week
2006-10-19 18:13:02Pollworkers for Democracy Training
2006-10-25 11:55:01Election Protection CoalitionWatching the Vote 2006
2006-12-18 10:59:19Kindra Muntz, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections1,000 Rally for Revote in Sarasota County FL-13 Race
2007-11-07 15:10:22Pamela Smith, Verified Voting FoundationElection Audit Summit Brings Together Statisticians, Election Officials, and Advocates