By
Robert Kibrick
Edited
by Ellen Theisen of www.VotersUnite.org
www.wheresthepaper.org/ProposalOpticalScan.htm
May
12, 2004
Precinct-count Optical Scan System for
New York
The State of New York should
seriously consider deploying statewide a precinct-count optical scan system.
While this "interim" solution could be implemented early in 2005, it
would actually form the foundation of a permanent
solution for New York State that could be fully implemented by 2006.
ADVANTAGES
¨
The capital cost
would be approximately half the cost of deploying DREs.
¨
It would
significantly reduce the number of uncounted votes in New York, especially in
races for Senate and Governor
"For example, three percent of voters using hand-counted
paper and scanned paper ballots had no vote recorded for Senate or governor,
but seven percent of voters using lever machines recorded no vote for Senate or
governor." [CalTech/MIT Voting Project, page 8]
"Had the counties using lever machines used optical
scanning, we estimate that there would have been 830,000 more votes recorded in
Senate and gubernatorial elections."
[CalTech/MIT Voting Project, p. 22]
¨
It would provide
protection against over-voting (as lever machines do), and ALSO provide
warnings about under-voting (which lever machines do not)
¨
It would support
bilingual ballots for a variety of foreign languages
¨
It would be
accessible to voters in wheel chairs (lever machines are not)
¨
It would provide
in-precinct ballot counts immediately at the close of the polls (just like
lever machines do)
¨
It would provide
a voter-verifiable paper trail for all voters in New York State
¨
With the addition
of a modest amount of additional equipment, all of the HAVA accessibility requirements for 2006
could be met on time
¨
It would provide
the foundation of a permanent solution so that NONE of the investments in
equipment purchase, election and poll worker training, and public education
would be wasted.
THE PROPOSAL
The optical scan paper
ballots would be printed on large sheets of paper:
¨
Ballots would be available in different
languages as needed.
¨
Voters would cast their votes by filling in
the "bubbles" on optical scan ballots.
¨
Voters would use lightweight, portable voting
booths to afford privacy while voting.
(These are available in heights to accommodate standing voters as well
as ADA-compliant wheelchair-height versions.)
¨
Once voters completed their ballots, they
would insert them into the precinct- count optical scanner:
- Over-voted ballots would be rejected; the voter would get a fresh ballot
- Blank ballots would produce a warning, and the voter would
get the opportunity to correct the ballot.
- Once a ballot was
successfully completed and accepted by the optical scanner, the votes on the
ballot would be counted into the scanner's memory and the scanner would deposit
the ballot into a locked ballot box
- At the close of the polls,
the optical scanner would produce a printout of all of the vote totals. Those
vote totals would be sent to election central, just the same as the vote totals
from lever machines were sent in previous elections. The locked ballot box
would be transported to election central so the ballots would be available for
any subsequent recount or audit.
EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR EACH POLLING PLACE
- One precinct-count optical
scanner Average cost: $5,000
- As many voting booths as
needed Average cost:
$250 each
- Marking pens to mark
optical scan ballots Average cost:
$25
Such equipment is readily
available from several major manufacturers of voting equipment. Without implying an endorsement of any
specific vendor's equipment, the following examples are offered for
illustration purposes only:
Precinct-count optical scanner:
Example scanner: ES&S Model 100. Additional information is
available at:
http://www.essvote.com/index.php?section=products&rightnav=products
Portable, fold-up voting booth:
Example: Vogue Election
Systems Vogue-I voting booth
http://www.vogueelection.com/products_votingbooth.html
ESTIMATE OF COST PER POLLING PLACE
The only variable is the number
of voting booths needed for each polling place.
The minimum would be one voting booth and the maximum would probably be
something like 10. So the range of
capital costs per polling place would be:
1-voting
booth polling place: ($5000 + $250) = $5250
5-voting
booth polling place: ($5000 + $1250) = $6250
10-voting
booth polling place:($5000 + $2500) = $7500
ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE ENTIRE STATE OF
NEW YORK
This depends on the total
number of polling places in New York, which is not a number that I have
available. Since New York has
approximately 20,000 lever machines, we know that there must be no more than
20,000 polling places. As a very rough
estimate, let's assume an average of four lever machines per existing polling
place, which would yield 5,000 polling places.
For our new system, let's assume the average polling
place will have five voting booths.
Since a 5-voting-booth polling place requires $6250 in equipment, if we
have 5,000 polling places to equip, the total cost would be approximately $31 million dollars
for the entire State of New York. (If
the number of polling places is larger, than the total cost would be
correspondingly higher, and if the number is lower, the cost would be lower.)
Are these rough estimates
reasonably in the ballpark? New York
State has about 11,200,000 registered voters.
Let's assume a relatively high turnout (i.e., > 70%), and plan for
8,000,000 voters to vote on election day. We have allocated an average of 5 voting
booths for each of 5,000 precincts, for a total of 25,000 voting stations (or
about 25% more voting stations than the number of existing lever
machines). That works out to an average
of 320 voters per voting booth, which is well within the typical range for this
voting technology.
Add to these capital
equipment costs the costs for training election officials, poll workers, and
educating the public. I do not have a
good way of estimating these costs, but can imagine that these could run in the
range of $10 million to $20 million (i.e., roughly $1 to $2 for each registered
voter in New York).
THE PERMANENT SOLUTION
The precinct-count optical
scan solution described above could be more than just an "interim"
paper solution. Rather, it could form
the foundation of a permanent and extremely cost-effective solution that could
be used for many years to come. As a
result, none of the investments in that "interim" solution would be
wasted.
To expand this
"interim" solution into a permanent one would only require the
addition of one additional device per polling place to accommodate the needs of
blind, visually-impaired, and language-impaired voters. This device could be one of either:
- A ballot marking device Approx. cost $4,500
-OR-
- A DRE/touch screen voting
machine + VVPB printer Approx.
cost $4,500
Assuming 5,000 polling places
as in our previous example, the incremental cost of equipping (by 2006) each
polling place with one of the above devices to provide disability access would
be $22,500,000. Add to that another
$5,000,000 for additional training for election and poll workers and another
$2,000,000 for an educational campaign for blind, visually-impaired, and
reading-impaired voters. Thus, a rough
estimate of upgrading the "interim" solution to the permanent
solution would be of order $30,000,000 for the entire state.
Such equipment will be
readily available from several major manufacturers of voting equipment no later
than 2005, well in time to meet the HAVA accessibility requirements of
2006. Without implying an endorsement of
any specific vendor's equipment, the following example is offered for
illustration purposes only:
Ballot marking device
http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html
This device provides a touch
screen or audio interface (for blind, visually-, or reading-impaired voters) to
a standard optical scan ballot. It also
provides over-vote and under-vote protection directly within the marking
device, thus ensuring that the optical scan ballot that it completes on behalf
of any voter is correctly filled in. Thus, any optical scan ballot completed
using such a ballot marking device should be readily accepted by the
precinct-count optical scanner, so that there would be little likelihood of it
being rejected by that scanner due to over-votes or under-votes, and thus no
need for any further intervention by the voter.
COST COMPARISON WITH OTHER SOLUTIONS
Assuming
5,000 polling places in New York State, the solution proposed above is roughly
estimated to cost:
- Interim
solution:
= $31,250,000 for polling place
equipment
= $20,000,000 for election/poll worker
training & public education
total
$51,250,000
- Cost to add
accessibility for blind, vision/reading-impaired by 2006:
= $22,500,000 for polling place
equipment
= $
7,000,000 for election/poll worker training & public education
total
$29,500,000
Subtotal for capital costs only (both phases): $53,750,000
Total cost for both phases: $80,750,000
If, instead, New York chose a
solution which deployed an equivalent number (i.e., 25,000) of DRE touch screen
voting machines and each one of those voting machines included an accessible
voter-verified paper ballot printer, the estimated cost for capital equipment
alone would be $112,500,000 (as compared to a total capital equipment cost of
$53,750,000 for the solution proposed above).
Thus, a solution employing a 100% deployment of DRE voting machines with
attached VVPB printers is roughly twice as expensive as the proposed solution. The hardware and software maintenance costs
for the DRE+VVPB solution are also estimated to be significantly higher due to
the significantly larger number of programmable electronic devices.
The proposed solution has the
added advantage that it can be deployed incrementally: the "interim"
solution is put in place in first and includes voting access for voters in
wheelchairs, while access for blind, vision- and reading-impaired voters is
added in 2005 and 2006, in time to meet HAVA deadlines.
EXAMPLES OF OTHER LARGE STATES & CITIES USING
PRECINCT-COUNT OPTICAL SCAN
The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago provide examples of a large
urban state and a densely-populated city that have successfully used
precinct-count optical scan systems for their elections. For example, 83% of the population of Illinois
(10 million) votes using such systems, including Chicago, which is a large,
ethnically-diverse city like New York.
For additional information from one Illinois County describing their
rationale for choosing a precinct-count optical scan solution, please see:
http://www.willclrk.com/votingsystem.htm#Why%20was%20the%20optical%20scan%20system%20selected?
Also, 80% of the State of Arizona also uses precinct-count
optical scan, including the city of Phoenix. For details, see:
http://www.sosaz.com/election/Az_election_law_white_paper.htm
The
Secretary of State of Michigan has
recommended that that entire State use precinct-count optical scan. For details, see:
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1640_9150-43906--M_2001_5,00.html
Other states that use mostly
precinct-count optical scan systems also include
South Dakota
( http://www.sdsos.gov/2000/00pripre.htm ) and
Minnesota ( http://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/Interactive%20Election%20Guides/HTML/15.htm
).
An example of another large
city that uses precinct-count optical scan is Seattle:
http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1998/vote421d.htm
In addition to these
examples, two major studies of voting systems determined that precinct-count
optical scan systems outperformed DRE voting machines in terms of residual
voting errors and cost per voter.
CalTech/MIT Voting Project
http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/
George Washington University
Report on Election Systems Reform
http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/
SUMMARY
By deploying a precinct-count
optical scan system for the entire State of New York soon, the number of New
Yorker voters who are now disenfranchised by problems with or limitations posed
by lever voting machines could be immediately reduced. In addition, voting access would be provided
to voters in wheelchairs.
The equipment needed for such
a solution is readily available, certified, and in widespread use in other
states, counties, and cities across the U.S., including states and cities with
similar population densities and ethnic diversities to New York. The equipment required for this solution not
only provides a voter-verified paper ballot solution now (something that most
touch screen systems currently can't do) but it also provides a more cost
effective solution than would be provided by DRE/touch screen voting machines
with attached VVPB printers.
Finally, this solution
provides the foundation for a permanent solution, so that none of the initial
investment is wasted. While all voters
will need to be trained to use any new system that replaces lever machines,
most voters would not need any retraining for 2006 and beyond. This proposal provides an incremental
solution, delivering a VVPB capacity early, while fully meeting the HAVA
accessibility requirements by 2006.
Were New York to embrace this
proposed solution, New York would be helping to lead the way towards an
accessible, voter-verified voting system, while at the same time increasing
access for the disabled and reducing the number of voters who are
disenfranchised by lever machine problems.
That would establish New York as the role model for other states having
large deployments of lever machines (e.g., Connecticut, Pennsylvania, etc.),
and give New York national visibility as a leader on this issue that is so
important to a large and rapidly growing number of concerned voters.