New York’s AutoMARK device by Election Systems & Software.
Remember the near-debacle in a Pennsylvania judge’s race, averted when the Republican chairwoman realized the vote totals were wildly unlikely? The devices are known as Ballot Marking Devices (BMD), and they permit auditing of results due to the fact that physical paper is marked by the device for each voter, and the voter may confirm that the votes they specified were properly recorded on that physical paper by displaying it for inspection to the voter.
But to that latter point, how often do voters perform the confirmation? A group of researchers at the University of Michigan conducted a study. From the abstract:
In order to measure voters’ error detection abilities, we conducted a large study (N = 241) in a realistic polling place setting using real voting machines that we modified to introduce an error into each printout. Without intervention, only 40% of participants reviewed their printed ballots at all, and only 6.6% told a poll worker something was wrong. We also find that carefully designed interventions can improve verification performance. Verbally instructing voters to review the printouts and providing a written slate of candidates for whom to vote both significantly increased review and reporting rates— although the improvements may not be large enough to provide strong security in close elections, especially when BMDs are used by all voters.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m concerned about a study of voting machines in an acknowledged fake vote situation. The state of mind of the voter is key in this situation, and it’s going to be substantially different between a real vote and a study.
That said, the 6.6% rate is quite discouraging, if we’re willing to take it at face value. It does nothing to boost my confidence in any sort of voting machine.
Get rid of them all!
