Introduction
The 2004 Washington State election for governor was a real nail biter. After the third recount (done manually), Secretary of State Sam Reed (R) certified that Christine Gregoire (D) won by 129 votes. There is much outrage, mostly by Republicans. Dino Rossi (R) supporters continue to demand a revote. Governor Gregoire formed the Election Reform Task Force to investigate and make recommendations for improvements.
Summary
My girlfriend and I attended the public meeting at Highline Community College, Valentine's Day 2/14/2005. I really enjoyed myself. It was fun to mingle with some like-minded people, including Paul Lehto and other geeks. We took some notes (omitting most names), hoping to capture a sense of the feedback. The following is cribbed from my notes and memory, a paraphrasing of my testimony, my observations, some recommendations, and finally, some handy links.
Setting
The meeting was held in the contemporary and new Student Union building. To testify, you had to sign up. A brochure and questionnaire were handed out (also available online). Various handouts from different sources were arrayed on the side. A microphone was setup in the middle of the floor, so that the people testifying faced the committee. I saw one video camera, off to the side and somewhat behind the microphone, facing the committee in the front. The HVAC was blowing pretty hard, sometimes making it hard to hear the person speaking.
Presentation
The meeting started with the usual introductions and a short blurb by each committee member. Sam Reed then gave a slideshow presentation.
Testimony
People were called up three at a time, each allowed to speak for 2 minutes. My rough count was 44 people testified. Due to time constraints (supposedly one of the committee members had a plane to catch) the final third of people were limited to 1 minute. Many people went past their allotted time. It wasn't clear if everyone who signed up in fact got to testify.
To expedite the testimonies, applause was discouraged. There was a modest amount of heckling. Sam Reed was called out a few times. Overall, everyone was well behaved, if not always polite.
Many of the people testifying participated in the election, as judges, precinct committee officers (PCO), poll workers, counters, canvasing, etc. These dedicated people were applauded for their efforts. Many spoke to the inconsistent rules and standards, the lack of physical security for the ballots, provisional ballots mistakenly being fed into the counter, and bottlenecks at some polling stations.
Much was made of ballots being changed. I had the impression that "voter intent" was somehow determined, the ballots modified, and then fed into the counter. A very good suggestion was made to sort ballots into bins for the candidates with an extra bin for "Unsure".
Requiring identification was a popular theme. Many people also wanted a statewide re-registration, perhaps even periodically. The master voter database idea was generally supported. Though one person reasonably asked why we needed new tools when existing verification tools were not used (e.g. disallowing PO boxes).
Someone thought ballots should be English only. Many people made statements about "personal responsibility". There were a few pointed criticisms of Sam Reed. Some people were a bit emotional, with one guy claiming that if this election didn't get fixed, things were going to be screwed up for his grandson (also in attendance).
Many people were grumpy that absentee ballots for the military were sent out late. Many firmly stated that vote fraud should be prosecuted.
Many non-geeks wanted to eliminate biased hand recounts in favor of the impartial and non-partisan optical counters. All of us geeks (5 or 6) expressed gave concerns about electronic voting and counting, generally insisting on paper trails, auditing, use of public domain software, that the software used be on file and available for review, and other remedies. The best zinger was "To all those who trust machines, I wonder how voting was done before machines?" One very good and novel idea was to make electronic voting optional. One very wise man noted, much to his surprise, his discovery that manual counting is a self-correcting process. He now favored manual counting over optical scanners.
One person noted that a revote before the problems are fixed would be pointless. Another noted that President Carter stated the 2004 American elections would not meet international standards.
What Paul Lehto Said
Paul Lehto's testimony was great. He opened with a dig about limiting discourse because someone else made a scheduling mistake (bad notes on my part). Voting is a right, not a privilege. Just like when Bush makes a grammatical error, he doesn't lose his right to speech, citizen do not lose their right to vote when a mistake is made. Quoting Stalin, Lehto stated reforms are moot if the count is suspect. He reiterated that the count cannot be secret. And finally, accuracy must be front loaded.
What I Said
Since I winged it, I have to paraphrase my own testimony. I thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak and their efforts under difficult circumstances. Then I made four points:
- The most significant problem with computerized voting and counting is that it is computerized. As a software developer, I'm keenly aware of all the potential problems. Any voting process must be both transparent and verifiable. The best voting method is paper ballots and manual counting. Canada spends roughly 1/4th per capita and have their results within 4 hours.
- Snohomish County's contract with Sequoia treats the counting method as a trade secret. This is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional.
- I oppose the new primary system, where voters must register their party. Further, only the top two contenders advance, even if they're in the same party. I much prefer instant runoff voting or approval voting.
- We should be encouraging participation. Perhaps by making election day a holiday or polling over a three day weekend.
Committee Wrap Up
Sam Reed noted that concerns voiced were much different from prior feedback in Vancouver. He also noted the feedback from the geeks. Sam Reed reaffirmed his support for paper trail and so forth. He also stated that touch screen voting is a Federal requirement by 2006.
Sam Smith did a very clever thing. He asked for a show of hands on various committee recommendations and many issues raised in testimony. Most of the recommendations were supported by a clear majority, including requiring identification to vote. Interesting, however, were two other questions. Regarding abolishing absentee ballots, the room was roughly divided for and against. And when asked who trusted computer voting (his term), only a few hands went up.
Much was said about restoring trust in the voting system.
Observations
Rossi supporters were well represented. Judging by the testimony and applause, I'd say the audience was split 60% Republican and 40% non-Republican. Mile Siegel, KTTH, and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation were all mentioned. I was struck by how consistent the Republican testimony was (queue court yard scene from Dead Poets Society.) Voter ID, personal responsibility, more rules, lack of accountability, officials are criminal, etc. I wonder if the revote advocates would also support a presidential revote. There's sufficient evidence to suspect that both the presidential and governor elections were gamed. Somehow I doubt it.
I voted for Sam Reed. I think he's my sole Republican vote since Newt Grinich's rise to power. Reed was the only candidate skeptical of electronic voting. I think Reed followed the spirit and letter of the law and did a fine job. Of course, he's now considered a traitor by his party. They even tried to initiate a recall. It's amazing to me how the current Republican Party demands conformity and loyalty (queue meat grinder scene from The Wall). Win at any cost. Democracy be damned.
Our society has a misplaced confidence in technology. I too used to believe that technology is inherently good and change was always for the better. My experiences have shown me otherwise. The history of adopting information technology (IT), whether it's administration, A/E/C, business, education, space exploration, or what have you, is filled with examples of fantastic, expensive, and utter failures. We've all seen sales people successfully pushing snake oil. Why should we expect our election officials to be any more sophisticated consumers of IT?
Someone recently criticized the progressives for not knowing enough about the Republican apparatus. I now wholeheartedly agree.
Recommendations
The primary problem with the 2004 governor election is that our current voting system handles tight elections very poorly. There will always be a margin of error. No amount of patching and fixing will overcome this problem. In fact, the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly in cases like these.
The only fix is a system that will better assess the will of the people. Two such systems are instant runoff voting or approval voting, for example
Elections should use paper ballots and manual counting. We should abandon expensive, unreliable, and unverifiable electronic voting and counting. I strongly disagree with the likes of Bruce Schneier and others who believe we can (competently, cost effectively) fix the inherent problems, if only we try harder next time. Computers fail silently. Even when you think you've covered all the angles, you'd never know if there was fraud. The cliché that every lock can be broken is true. And it's too much to expect election workers and volunteers to be computer saavy (people are the weakest link in any security regiment).
Now the mundane stuff. Announce the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, stating if there's a cut off time. Set up two microphones for testimony, alternating back and forth. The sign up can be done while waiting to speak. The task force's brochure is a tri-fold, making it hard to print out. The online version should be chopped into 6 pages. Set up separate table for handouts. Display web site and email addresses for feedback. From personal experience, many people would rather write than speak.
Links
Election Reform Task Force
Evidence Of Election Irregularities In Snohomish County, Washington, General Election, 2004
Interview with Paul Lehto and Randy Gordon, Mind Over Matters (2/5/05)
(Under "KEXP Programs", choose "Mind Over Matters", hit "Go". Under "Select Show Time", choose "Feb 5", hit "Go". Under "Select Time", enter 7:30am, then choose stream to use. Note: KEXP only keeps archives online for two weeks!)
Paper Vote Canada
What is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Citizens for Approval Voting
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
Thank media watchdogs for spurring election reform (WA State)
State task force gets earful over gubernatorial election