Optical-scan machines worked better at polls, analysis finds - FL

[soup]

By Associated Press
Published January 17, 2005

FORT LAUDERDALE - Optical-scan machines outperformed touch screens in the general election, although both had a similar error rate, a newspaper reported Sunday.

The touch screen voting machines performed better in the Nov. 2 presidential election than they did in the March presidential preference primary, according to a South Florida Sun-Sentinel analysis. But the touch screen machines were outmatched by older voting devices that use pencil and paper ballots.

The evaluation was based on undervotes cast on each system. Undervotes are instances in which the voter skipped the presidential race or a choice was not tallied for reasons including machine and software error.

>snip<
Of 2.7-million votes on touch screens reviewed, 11,824 ballots had no vote registered for president, resulting in an error rate of 0.44 percent.

Of 2.3-million votes on optical-scan machines, 6,731 ballots were not recorded or flawed, leading to an error rate of 0.29 percent.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/17/State/Optical_scan_machines.shtml

---

no problem, it's only 18,555 votes.

[Stevepol]

1. But of course the accuracy of the vote counting wasn't checked.

So how can they make any prounouncements about how well the machines performed? It makes no sense until you can audit the machiens for accuracy IN EVERY ELECTION with a hand-count of paper ballots.

[hedda_foil]

2. Hey, they had more than that many undervotes in New Mexico.

21,000 out of 700,000 votes cast. 2.4% undervotes ... highest in the country, and all but 3,000 cast on election day on paperless e-voting machines in heavily Dem precincts... especially Hispanic and Native American ones. And the Secretary of State thinks it's no big deal because they ALWAYS have undervotes this high. They've been using an old push-button model for years and that's where the problem seems to be.

[lostnfound]

5. & Snohomish County study suggests "no undervotes" is "default to Bush"

The Snohomish County study discusses that question very directly. It ties reports of "default to Bush" and "screen calibration" problems to the advantage that the Republican candidate for governor had on touchscreens vs paper.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Hey, yes, and they're all in REPUBLICAN Counties.

Hellooo, anybody out there listening?

[rzemanfl]

4. I bet Karl Rove is investigating why those votes...

weren't switched to * like they were supposed to be.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. LOL!

[AtLiberty]

6. BULLSHIT!!!

We don't know how these opti-scan machines worked! Just because they didn't break down or voters didn't see automatic defaults, doesn't mean fraud didn't take place. And there's nothing here about central tabulators. There is mounting evidence that a quarter of a million votes were stolen from Kerry and given to aWol in Florida ALONE -- all on opti-scan.

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. I find the undervote situation interesting.

Because I do know several people who claim they deliberately did not cast a vote for president although they voted in other races. They detest Bush, but could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry or anyone else. They felt their abstention would send a message. I tried to warn them the message it would send was an error message, not an indictment of Bush's administration.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Touch-Screens Don't Have Undervotes Because...

...they defaulted them all to Booosh** in most states that used them.

If you didn't explicitly select Kerry (and sometimes, even if you did)
you voted for Booosh**!