A recent study by Mark Lindeman, an assistant professor of political science at Bard College in New York, shows that optically scanned paper ballots were better at registering the intent of the voters than touch screen voting machines.
In the study, Prof. Lindeman found that in the 67 North Carolina counties where the voting method is optically scanned paper ballots (what Tennesseans are not using now), 0.78% of ballots failed to register a vote for President last November. The 24 counties where touch screens (what Tennesseans are using now) were the principal method of voting saw 1.36% of ballots fail to register a vote for President, a difference of over 7000 votes in the 2008 election. His findings are consistent with a previous study of the Brennan Center for Justice that showed precinct-based optical scanners had the lowest residual vote rate of any type of technology in the 2004 Presidential election.
This latest study makes the argument on the last day of session by Tennessee House Minority Leader Gary Odom to keep the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act – and paper ballots counted by optical scan machines – intact and on track for implementation for the November 2010 election even more relevant.
Although Leader Odom’s plea fell on deaf ears and the House voted in a ridiculously large number (73-20) to delay our paper ballots, he demonstrated a firm grasp of the issue and made many salient points.
One that is of particular importance since the delay bill failed in the Senate and the State Election Coordinator is now legally obligated to implement paper ballots by the 2010 election, is that there is virtually no difference between the 2002 standards and the 2005 standards applied to the optical scan machines the state is required to purchase.
Leader Odom: “…I guarantee you, in 2011, we’re going to come back here, and this is going to be delayed again – or repealed – because there’s not going to be a machine that meets the 2005 standards. And in my discussions – and I’ve talked frequently with the Election Assistance Commission personnel, they’re telling me the standards differ very little in the technology between the 2002 scanner and the 2005…”
So while the State Election Coordinator is saying that he can’t comply with the law because the law says that he must purchase machines that are certified to 2005 standards, I say that according to the EAC, the 2005 standards ARE the 2002 standards and that no machines certified to the 2002 standards have been “de-certified.”
I also say, take a look at the studies like Prof. Bards’s which illustrate that the machines we use now to vote on are crappy machines.
And finally, while most people discussing this issue put the emphasis on the machines that count the paper ballots, I say, put the emphasis on the paper ballots themselves because the paper ballots are what will give Tennesseans secure and verifiable elections.
