E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Clay Frost / NBCNews.com
Electronic voting machines were widely installed after the 2000 presidential election, but the potential for glitches has sparked controversy. Click on the image for an interactive graphic explaining how voting systems work.
The good news about voting technology is that the upgrades put into place since the controversial 2000 presidential election have made ballot tallies twice as accurate as they were — but the bad news is that the rise of early vote-by-mail systems could erode those gains.
That's the assessment from the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project, which has been monitoring voting technology and election administration nationwide for nearly a dozen years — ever since the "hanging-chad" debacle of the Bush vs. Gore election. Coming less than three weeks before this year's Election Day, the project's latest report includes some recommendations that could improve the election process in as little as two years.
But first, project co-director Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at MIT, wants to celebrate the good news.
"Voter registration is gradually getting better," he told me. "Voting machines are clearly better. This is a voting-technology feel-good story. We're getting the voter registration process into the 20th century, if not the 21st century."
Twelve years ago, the presidential election's outcome was plunged into doubt due to Florida's poorly designed butterfly ballot. The controversy sparked a Supreme Court ruling that decided the election, as well as a multimillion-dollar federal program to upgrade voting technology. Back then, the "residual vote" — that is, the discrepancy between votes cast and votes counted — was 2 percent nationwide. That number dropped to 1 percent by 2006, thanks in large part to the replacement of punch-card and lever systems with more reliable systems.
For a while, all-electronic voting systems flourished — but after a series of scandals, election officials have been gravitating toward optical-scan machines and paper ballots, which measure up as the most reliable voting systems that are out there.
Due to these upgrades, Stewart said the possibility of a Florida-style situation "is much lower now than it was 12 years ago."
Melissa Harris-Perry and her guests talk about future investments in technology to streamline voting.
Now the bad news...
Even as the report celebrates those gains, it raises concerns about another voting trend: the growing popularity of no-excuse-needed absentee voting, also known as early voting by mail. Oregon and Washington state have gone to a strictly vote-by-mail system. In seven other states (Colorado, Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia), more than half of all ballots were cast before Election Day in 2008 — with many of them sent in the mail.
The report says that election officials should discourage no-excuse-needed absentee voting and "resist pressures to expand all-mail elections."
Why are the experts so down on the uptrend? A long-running study in California has shown that the residual vote rate for absentee ballots is 2.2 percent for presidential races, and even higher for other races and propositions. That's worse than the average in 2000. "The improvement we've gotten by having better voting machines in the precincts may be given back by having more and more people voting at home," Stewart said.
The reasons behind the high error rates include potentially confusing instructions for filling out the ballot, plus the fact that there's no opportunity to catch improperly filled-out ballots at the polling place and give the voter a chance to make corrections. Even the mailing process can play a role: Stewart referred to demonstrations showing that pencil marks can become smudged when the ballot is folded, put in an envelope and run through a postal processing machine. (Note to self: Use ballpoint pen to fill out ballot.)
If you want to cast your vote early and make sure that it counts, it's better to do it in person at an early voting site than to mail it in, Stewart said.
A solution for voter ID?
This year's report also addresses the controversy over voter identification at polling places. Republicans generally favor more stringent ID requirements, such as showing a government-issued photo ID; Democrats generally voice concern that such measures suppress the vote. The report notes that the "debate over voter identification and associated claims of election fraud may become one of the most important issues of the 2012 presidential election."
To balance those concerns, Stewart and his colleagues suggest shifting the burden for identification from the voter to the state. Each state could match up its voter registration database with photos from driver's licenses and other photo-ID databases to create "electronic pollbooks." Pollworkers could confirm a voter's identity by checking the photo that's in the pollbook. If the voter doesn't already have a photo ID on file with the state, a picture could be taken at the polling place and associated with a voter's affidavit of identity for future reference.
"Exactly the system we're talking about hasn't been done, but I think the technology for this is just a stutter step away," Stewart said. The report says such a system could be implemented in some states by 2014, and in most others by 2016.
The MIT-Caltech group also recommends that election officials conduct routine post-election audits to gauge how well they're doing, and use the results to guide corrective actions for future elections. Some activists might want to go so far as to hold up the certification of election results until audits are completed, but "right now just getting localities to do the audits is the first hurdle," Stewart said.
The report acknowledges that some of the recommendations may raise privacy issues for lawmakers to consider at the federal and state level. "You have to think seriously about these tradeoffs," Stewart said.
How about Internet voting?
For now, the concerns about computer security are too great to allow for widespread voting via the Internet, the report says. Some states let military personnel submit their absentee ballots online, or via e-mail or fax. But it's more common for states to let voters obtain a blank ballot over the Internet but require them to submit the filled-in ballot via postal mail.
"The official word [in the report] is that there shouldn't be completed ballots transmitted electronically until the security issues are dealt with," Stewart said. "We also think there should be further research into the security of Internet voting — and if those security issues do get solved, then it might be a different kettle of fish."
What should a faraway voter do? If you're in the military or living overseas, check the Federal Voting Assistance Program's Voting Assistance Guide to find out about the options for receiving and sending in your ballot.
More about voting technology:
- E-voting gets closer in 2012
- App gets you ready for Election Day
- How Facebook friends get out the vote
- Electoral College math: Not all votes are equal
In addition to Stewart, the principal authors of the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project's report are Caltech's R. Michael Alvarez, Harvard's Stephen Ansolabehere, the University of Utah's Thad E. Hall, Caltech's Jonathan Katz and MIT's Ronald L. Rivest. The report was funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The Voting Technology Project has also been supported by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Vote by mail has a slightly higher error rate, 2% according to the article, but a greatly higher participation rate. Vote by mail states see 20% more people voting. You can squeeze voters to a point where your error rate is zero but at the cost of having practically no one actually being able to vote.
I wonder what percent of mail ballots are not counted because voters fail to put proper postage on the envelope. Each reason for "residual votes" should be looked at separately and not just dismissed as an acceptable rate of vote loss. Compared to uncounted ballots, Republican-touted "voter fraud" is a non-issue trumped up only to suppress votes for Democratic and minority candidates.
I'm all in favor of voting early by mail, but I sure wish the envelopes had pre-paid postage on them. These days, with so much being done online, fewer people have postage stamps lying around - especially those with current prices on them.
Oregon supplies ballot boxes at libraries and other locations that allow for postage free voting.
I live in Washington state and don't like vote-by-mail. I think voting and registering to vote should be difficult or less than convenient. You can look at the glass as half-empty and say this would discourage people from voting. I look at the glass and say it's half-full - making registration and voting more difficult would result in votes being cast only by people who are seriously motivated to vote and engaged in the process. Voting, after all, is supposed to be a civic duty. As such it should be onerous to the degree necessary to impart respect for, and real deliberation about, the process.
I just mailed in my Colorado ballot today. I love voting by mail. I get the list of candidates and can look them up before filling in the ballot (by pen, as the article suggests). It's great.
You would need to be a Philadelphia Lawyer to decipher the deceptive language that the Florida GOP Legislature used on all the 11 Florida Constitution amendments on their ballot.
Most of time when you think you understand it, you are actually voting against what you want to happen.
My take is that constitutional amendment need to be reserved for really important things and not for putting your political agenda into the constitution.
------
Vote NO on all Florida Constitutional amendments.
.
The fly in the ointment is that according to the Daily Kos, the Romney family is invested in the company tallying counts from the voting machines in swing states. Not only are they invested in it, but the employees of the company will be confirming votes.
I am in favor of paper ballots. Either that or nobody who is a candidate should be allowed anywhere near the e-voting process. There needs to be accountability!
Just google "Does The Romney Family Now Own Your E-Vote Daily Kos" to find the article as I cannot post a link.
I live in California and lived in Oregon. In my lifetime I've never been to a polling place. I vote by mail and always early. If you can't read the very simple instructions, then having your vote not count is not your biggest problem. 1: use blue or black ink. 2: fill in bubbles completely 3: put ballot into envelope. 4: Sign 5: add stamp/drop off at official ballot box 6: mail.
I get as much time as I need to read all the measures and research my candidates.
It should be the standard for all states. voting machines are garbage and not to be trusted. Remember Ohio?
Tim.W,
I am an Expat currently living in Costa Rica. I am grateful that I have an opportunity to vote in both local, and National, elections in my home state. I must disagree with your statement that says "If you can't read the very simple instructions, then having your vote count is not your biggest problem."
The simple instructions for my state's ballot were actually a little too simple. It stated one should "Mark your ballot" but gave no indication HOW to do so. There were no boxes to check, lines to mark, nor any other recommendation as to what method to use to mark the ballot.
Fortunately, the email age provided the solution. I simply sent a message to the county registrar and ask for clarification. They responded within fifteen minutes, and gave me the following advice.
"Mark you ballot in any way you choose, as long as you are consistent throughout the ballot." I do tend to feel that it should be made clearer right from the beginning. Maybe check boxes or lines next to each candidates name. While it would be nice to think that all states could be consistent, it's probably not going to happen in my lifetime.
Ahh yes, that would be confusing. In California and Oregon, the instructions are a lot better than that. We essentially use a scantron which requires you to fill in the numbered bubble that corresponds with candidate/measure in the voters guide.
The younger generations are very familiar with scantrons since they are always used for taking tests in school. Perhaps I take that fro granted.
States should use common sense thou and give clear and concise instructions. Even give illustrations when needed.
Sad to see Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at MIT, is truly a legend in his own mind. Having spent a lifetime in the pampered, sheltered world of academia, he hasn't got a clue how the real person lives. I laughed at his excuses for ending vote by mail, he has no idea what he is talking about. Sure, vote early instead by driving down to some polling place, find parking, walk to polls, wait in line, vote, repeat process going home. Hello Charles, what are you thinking? I like receiving my ballot in the mail, relaxing in my home as I review my choices, no one waiting for my voting machine, making my selections, then dropping it in the mail box. Wow, no cost to me, in my home at my convenience. Charles, you can't get any easier than that. As for your mistaken guidance to drop "no-excuse-needed absentee voting" you need to get a life. Our forefathers wisely put no restrictions on how we vote. Who do you think you are for trying to make voting by mail harder? Hmmm, must be getting a kickback from the voting machine makers, typical for an academia world bureaucrat. Charles, does MIT know how much you have "lost it." Might be a good idea to find a new job, you obviously are not qualified for your current position.
My son requested an absentee ballot in 2004 to vote in the first election he was elligible. Our city's voter registrar's office had NO fax machine to send a request to. I had to get it by mail from the city, then send it to him in college. He had to mail it back to the city and wait for his absentee ballot to arrive. It never did.
Imagine that.
My wife and I have been using absentee ballots for over a decade now. It is far more convenient, and we get our vote in as soon as early voting starts. No long lings at some high school, no waiting while 90 YO women look up our names in a book. This will be the first year in the past thirteen years we will actually vote in person, as we now live around the corner from the polling place, and we moved back here after last year's election from another state. After this year, all votes will be posted by mail again.
We look forward to the day we can vote via ATM (it has a camera) or via the Web. Short of that, make Election Day a Federal and State holiday and make sure everyone gets off so they can vote. That is a far bigger issue than voting in person or by mail.
Whoever wrote this article obviously didn't talk to anyone who does absentee ballots. We live in WA and think it's great. My wife and I can sit down, talk about it, research if we need to (since most of the things and candidates on the ballot I've never heard of) instead of "I have no idea who that is, I'll just guess."
The electoral makes the choice not us. Sure they say our vote counts and I vote each time. However, remember Ross Proet? He had won by popular vote but not electoral if I remember correctly. Here again, the electoral thinks it know whats better for us then we do.
JLafnear - Ross Perot did not win by popular vote. He got 18.9% of the popular vote. That wasn't at all close to winning the popular vote in that race. Bill Clinton won the popular vote with 43% and George H. W. Bush came in 2nd in the popular vote with 37.5%.
Odd that this article does not mention Oregon's vote by mail system. In fact, in Oregon there is no other way to cast a vote other than by mail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon
Actually, Bruce, the article says quite clearly
"Oregon and Washington state have gone to a strictly vote-by-mail system."
Bruce, in Oregon you can still go down to a polling place on election day and cast your balot in person. I've done this in the past when I've put off filling in my vote-by-mail balot until after the mailing deadline.
I wish the author of the article had researched the statistics in Oregon around how many balots are not counted due to voter error. That would've given him some actual data instead of relying on the theory of an academic's research on a state that doesn't have a significant percent of the population voting by mail.
There are also official drive-thru voting drop offs too. If it's too late to mail in your ballot, you can drive to a polling place and give your ballot to an official. This is also a good way to go if you worry that the mail system will lose your ballot. I'm a Democrat so I trust the postal union to deliver my ballot to the election office.
A lot of cities even have official election mailboxes similar to the US Postal Service mailboxes you see around town.
All of these options increase voter turn-out.
Now if we could only get rid of the Electoral College so it truly is "one person, one vote".
Whenever the subject of eliminating the Electoral College comes up, small states scream bloody murder! Their fear is that if only the popular vote mattered, who would ever campaign in Iowa? They might have a point!
JLafnear
No. You don't remember correctly. Ross Perot DID NOT win the popular vote in ANY state. He didn't win squat. Gore won the popular vote, but not the Electoral College.
I think you're confusing two different elections. Perot ran in 1992 and Gore ran in 2000. Gore was on the Democrat ticket in 1992 as Vice President.
Voting by mail is the best!
Both voter id laws are becoming more common at the same time as voting by mail is. What I want to know is how do you check the id of someone marking a ballot at his or her kitchen table? Someone other than the registered voter could do that. Seems to me that there is a great opportunity for voter fraud and manipulation that way.
You have to sign your ballot. Someone could forge it but it wouldn't match and that would be a FELONY.
You are absolutely correct John Bob. To add to your comment; I have a friend that works in one of the county elections office and when I raised the question about signature verification he told me that elections staff members that are trained in matching signatures check every single signature on every single balot that comes in. He told me that the folks that do the signature matching receive training every 6 months to ensure that they're skills are up to date.
In many Oregon county elections offices, your voter registration card - which you signed - has been scanned and before your ballot envelope is opened, the outside envelope, which you signed is scanned and the computer does the match. If the signatures don't match, the elections office will contact the person who's name is on the outer envelope for more information.
My dad voted after having a stroke and his signature was a mess. The elections people asked if he could come down to the elections office and sign something in their presence, which he did. His ballot envelope was then processed.
Fraudulent voters often use a phony address when registering. With vote by mail, the ballot is mailed to the registrant's address. If it comes back undeliverable, the elections staff investigate and if found to be fraudulent, the registration is deleted and the local district attorney's office is notified for further action.
I live in Oregon. Vote by mail is the best way to vote, period. I'm old enough to remember having to find my polling place on the day and in time. Vote by mail allows me to vote when I have time and I can do my research. Charles Stewart is an idiot. Vote by mail should be the national standard.
I'm voting in Florida by mail today and I am worried given their track record of stealing elections and the current voter suppression going on. Carefully following the directions, there is a step to insert the ballot in the "Security Sleeve" and then put into the mailing envelope. I couldn't find the "Security Sleeve" so I called and found that it was the green flier that had directions on it. Purpose for this? Create confusion maybe? Will ballots be thrown out if people don't figure out what the green sleeve is? Then, I licked the envelope and the paper nearly disintegrated. Hopefully, that doesn't invalid it. It's a shame we have to worry about such things in the U.S.A. I'm sick about this and truly have begun to believe that the once Grand Old Party has now become fully possessed by the devil himself.
Gee, maybe someone should have told M. Obama about this issue before she voted.
No, it is too her advantage that the voting system will again be a big mess. Better for her.
That' an interesting statement, considering all if the "voter fraud" (fraud is a eufamism in this case for supression) laws the republicans have been attempting to push through this close to an election. It's clear these people are merely trying to maniputlate numbers so lying sack of Mitt can finish destroying the american dream.
Voting by mail in Washington is outstanding
Being able to spend all afternoon or evening researching issues and candidates and carefully making a choice. No picking names at random because you were rushed. No voting shenanigans like only having a few voting machines in a poor district, but having plenty in rich ones. No polling place intimidation. Having a paper record for true recounts. Not having to worry that your job or your obligations will prevent you from voting. Shut-ins and Elderly being able to vote without relying on volunteers to drive them to the polls. Better yet, there's a website in Washington that tells you if they received your vote or not in the mail.
I'm from Oregon. I love the vote by mail even though I ALWAYS drop it in the ballot box downtown. So maybe, if someone isn't smart enough to fill the ballot out right, maybe they really shouldn't be voting anyway??? Just saying.
Once again, the loser in the whole affair is USPS.
When Oregon first swtched to vote by mail/dropoff I admit I missed standing in line, there was something patriotic along with a connection to veteran's like my father. But now, I value the time at home filling out the ballot with all the information in front of me. No one has the excuse for just pulling levers/punching holes just to finish a lengthy ballot anymore. Most importantly, voting participation is higher.
Mar k, I had the same regret. I liked taking my completed ballot and having one of the clerk's announce to the whole world that I had voted!
But, like you, I have come to love the Oregon system.
Billions of dollars (BILLIONS) are spent over the internet every day/Tell but it's not secure enough to vote??? WHAT kind of stupid do they think we are? The banks,government,state,wall street,IRS all use the net why can't we??
I agree with others here, that vote by mail is the best, as it can be done when convenient, gives you time to research while you are voting instead of before, can be done by somebody that is immobile, doesn't require standing in a long line, etc.
I have voted in both Oregon and Washington (other states too in the past). My observation is that it is working very well indeed.
Currently in WA, where there is a secure free ballot-drop-box within easy walking distance of the transit mall. This is very great.
WA ballots are optically read - the computer reads the same information easily read and understood by a human, much better than punched cards. Punch cards have not only the "hanging chad" problem, but also a lack of clear correspondence between the punches an the votes. Bad human-factors design.
All vote-tallying machines must be required to use only published open-source software. Proprietary (secret) software is incompatible with transparency in the voting process. You wouldn't trust ME to write the secret-vote counting software, would you? :-)
An important benefit of mail-only (with free drop box) voting is that it circumvents the whole "voter ID" manufactured controversy. If you really think that voter ID laws are about election fraud rather than voter suppression, I've got a bridge to sell you...
Being a handicapped individual with limited mobility voting by mail is a blessing to me.
It seems silly that the Internet is secure enough to do my banking, shopping, investing but not my voting. Look, let everyone register for a security card with a chip in it, along with a reader for their computer or tablet. I'll even pay for it. Then I can vote as I want. I could even do a better job of participating in my local elections!
Another Repuglican idea to suppress the vote. We already voted by mail. Very convenient. The only cheating I've heard of in vote by mail was by a Repuglican who was voting for his dead partner.