|
CVD Comments on Federal Elections Commission's
Proposed New Voting System
Standards
January 28, 2002
January 28, 2002
Ms. Penelope Bonsall
Director, Office of Election
Administration
999 E. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463 Dear Director Bonsall: We would like to
commend the Federal Election Commission on its recommendations for
Voting System Standards (VSS). We recognize the work and detail that
has gone into the development of these standards and appreciate the
FEC�s efforts to create the best standards possible for the nation�s
voting machines. The Center for Voting and Democracy � a
non-profit, non-partisan organization headed by former Member of
Congress John B. Anderson � have reviewed the latest draft of the
proposed Voting Systems Standards and would like to offer two
suggestions for your consideration that we believe could build upon
and improve the standards. Comments The Center for Voting and
Democracy submitted comments last summer addressing the FEC�s Voting
Systems Standards, and now we would like to make the following
recommendations to the revised Voting Systems Standards: 1. Volume I, Section 2
2.2.2.2 DRE System Standards
The Center for Voting and
Democracy believes that this section about an electronic ballot
image should not only apply to DRE Systems, but also to paper-based
systems, such as optical scan and punchcard. We have spoken with
experts in the election administration and anti-fraud fields and
have found agreement for including electronic recording and storage
of all ballot images within the VSS. For example, an official who
handles election crimes at the Department of Justice has told us
that redundant electronic copies of each ballot image would aid his
work investigating voter fraud and related problems. For example, he
told us about a case in which two years after an election there was
a credible allegation about software manipulation on election day,
but because the paper ballots had not been maintained, there was no
means to re-run the ballots. In another case in Alabama, there had
been an allegation of ballots being altered between when they were
initially counted and a recount. They had resorted to approaching
absentee voters to compare how they had voted with how they were
currently recorded; having an electronic back-up would have provided
another, potentially better means to compare what happened on
election day with how they ultimately were counted in a recount.
(continued) Florida�s ballot count in the 2000 presidential
election underscores how electronic storage of all ballot images
could also have been helpful to scholars. One article in the Chicago
Tribune in 2001 expressed citizens� concerns about the fact that
Palm Beach County had erased its electronic files that showed how
each ballot had been cast. The Tribune noted that the ballots
themselves were not destroyed, but could not accurately be recounted
since they had been handled so much and possibly damaged. We
believe the anti-fraud and accountability aspects of requiring
voting machines to electronically record ballot images is a strong
reason for its inclusion in the VSS. Therefore, we would recommend
that 2.2.2.2 DRE Systems Standards be changed to reflect �DRE and
Paper-Based System Standards� which could read: �As an additional
means of ensuring accuracy, ALL VOTING DEVICES shall record and
retain redundant copies of the original ballot image. A ballot image
is an electronic record of all votes cast by the voter on a single
ballot.� We would be pleased to alert you to election specialists
who support this change. One example is Trevor Potter, former chair
of the Federal Elections Commission. 2. Volume I, Section 2
2.2.8 Vote Tabulating
Under this area is a listing of items that relate
to various ways of voting in various states and localities. Under
the proposed Voting System Standards, the [TDP] must specifically
identify which of these their system can accommodate. The Center
for Voting and Democracy recommends that the [TDP] identify both
what their system can accommodate as well as cannot accommodate. We
believe that would be more useful to jurisdictions acquiring voting
machines, to clarify for election administrators the machines�
limitations in addition to their capacities. There is a potential
middle ground for some machines where they could accommodate a
certain item, but cannot currently do so. Other machines do not even
have the potential to accommodate a certain item. Therefore, we
suggest the language be modified to include the below language (in
capital letters): There are significant variations among the
election laws of the 50 states with respect to permissible ballot
contents, voting options, and the associated ballot counting logic.
The TDP accompanying the system shall specifically identify which of
the following items can AS WELL AS CANNOT be accommodated by the
system� Within the FEC�s listing of voting options, however, we
note the omission of different electoral systems that already are
used in some American jurisdictions and are under increasing
consideration. For example, more than 50 jurisdictions in Texas have
adopted cumulative voting in the past decade, and in Illinois,
former governor Jim Edgar (R) and former Congressman Abner Mikva (D)
led a task force that called for adopting cumulative voting for the
state legislature. San Francisco will vote in March 2002 on whether
to convert its traditional "delayed" runoff with a ranked-choice,
instant runoff voting system, while a dozen states considered
legislation to enact instant runoff voting -- several quite
seriously.
We therefore, strongly urge inclusion of cumulative
voting and ranked ballot voting within this list of
items. p. cumulative voting
q. ranked order ballots (i.e., preference
or preferential voting; choice voting; instant runoff
voting). Attached is a listing of respected scholars, civic
leaders and elected officials who support new voting equipment be
required to be compatible with these voting systems and certainly
would believe at a minimum that vendors reveal whether their
equipment is compatible with these systems. We would be happy to
offer you more information about cumulative voting and ranked
balloting and where issues of how they can be used on voting
equipment has been an important consideration for jurisdictions.
We at the Center for Voting
and Democracy appreciate your work on these issues and are willing to assist you
in any way we can. Please let us know if you have any questions
about our comments. We will be following up to ensure that you
received our letter and to determine if there is anything more we can
do. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and for your
commitment to establishing fair and useful voting system standards.
Sincerely,
Rob Richie
Executive Director
|
