No, it’s not that paper trails are needed for electronic touch screen voting machines, though that is definitely a good thing.
And no, it’s not that electronic voting machines can be hacked, though that is certainly an issue of great concern.
So what is it? The answer is over the fold.
This issue has been extensively discussed in DK, so I don’t want to repeat a lot. The big question has always been, What caused the 18,000 vote undercount? In the days following the election someone showed a photo of how the touch screen ballot for the District 13 race looked. I’ve been trying to find it, but haven’t been able to locate it. If anyone else knows where this photo is please add to the comments. But, here is a description of it from the St. Petersburg Times of 11/18:
The congressional race shared Page 2 of the ballot with the gubernatorial race, which was set off with a teal "STATE" headline that the congressional race lacked. Voters' eyes may have gone straight to the bolder governor's race section, missing the congressional race above.
When I saw the photo my immediate thought was "Oh no, it’s another Butterfly Ballot". The reference is to the infamous Broward County, Florida [ht to byDesign for pointing out this should be Palm Beach County] presidential ballot of 2000 that caused many senior citizens to vote for Pat Buchanan. The implication being that poor ballot design caused the undervote in Sarasota County.
Another quote from the Times:
"This is an absolutely ridiculous ballot design that never should have been used," said Ted Selker, co-director of the CalTech-MIT Voting Technology Project. He is conducting a study of the ballot, and suspects it played a key role in people neglecting to vote.
My fears were only reinforced when news of the Orlando Sentinel article came out that said most of the undervotes were from ballots where voters went straight Democratic down the line. Historically, this strong party bias typically shows up in Florida in precincts that are either predominantly elderly or low socio-economic status. These are also two groups who might not be as familiar with the technology and might possibly be compromised by other issues. I wondered if there was a precinct by precinct analysis.
When Big Tent Democrat’s diary came out that info was included in the comments thread. As was hashed out there, the highest undercounts were in the types of precincts I mentioned. This is strong evidence that the undervote was due to ballot design, not machine malfunction. The Sarasota Herald Tribune also has an article to this effect.
I still had some question about all the reports of people who stated that they knowingly voted for Jennings but then it didn’t show up on the review screen. Big Tent Democrat’s reply was short: "Selective memory". (He[she?] directed me to his cross-posted site, but I didn’t find anything else there addressing this point). So I thought about it for a while.
Given the fact that it is well established that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable type of evidence, it is quite possible that those reports of machine malfunction may be well-meaning, but ultimately bogus. I’m not 100 percent with that decision, but the precinct evidence is pretty straight forward and "poor ballot design" is the most compelling reason for the undervote.
Now, Big Tent Democrat was a little harsh on Christine Jennings for not rejecting the ballot when it was proposed. But, I can’t go along with that. (In fact, if she can finagle a re-election out of this mess, more power to her!). If you look at the ballot on paper it seems okay. It is only when it appears on the touch screen that the problem develops. And probably the point here is that this is something we need to be clearer about when discussing election reform.
And more importantly, as is brought out in BTD’s story, this problem of undervoting due to poor ballot design is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. Yes, candidates have a responsibility to review ballots and voters have a responsibility to familiarize themselves with it, but when problems of this magnitude arise, it is important to see that they are adequately dealt with. If three-fourths of the machines in a precinct malfunction, that is a systemic problem that is thwarting the will of the electorate. That’s also what unintentional undervotes do. Both the government and we as citizens need to see that these types of impediments to democracy are kept to a minimum.
The bottom line here is that Vern Buchanan did not win the race (even though he ended up with more votes). It was the intent of most of those 18,000 people to vote for the Democrat, Christine Jennings. As a Floridian, I’m tired of candidates losing on technicalities and I hope this discussion and the DailyKos community can make sure that it stops.