[EL] some blind spots in the CalTech-MIT study on voting technology

[Salvador Peralta]

Hi Richard,

I am surprised at some of the rather obvious inaccuracies in this report, given the institutions and authors involved.

For example, the document was published Oct 10, 2012 and includes the following passage:


"News reports in Oregon and California have documented challenges that election officials have begun wrestling with, due to the closing of mail processing facilities. These closings will certainly delay the distribution and return of mail-in ballots in the upcoming 2012 election." (p. 39)

This passage fits neatly into the article's narrative and recommendations that vote by mail should not be expanded. 

The trouble is, it just isn't true.  

In May, 2012, the USPS announced that the proposed postal closures would not affect Oregon in 2012.

http://projects.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/28087942-41/postal-centers-service-processing-mail.html.csp

Additionally, I find it surprising at how little data is given in the report to justify some of its conclusions. 

For example, on page 41, the report states:  


"Fiscal data associated with election administration remains elusive, so we do not know whether nonprecinct voting is a money-saver." 

Yet the remainder of the paragraph concerns itself with studies and data that shows vote-by-mail, in fact, saves money:


The most comprehensive recent study on the issue concerned prospective savings in Colorado, should it shift entirely
to voting-by-mail. Researchers Peggy Cuciti and Allan Wallis concluded that had the 2010 general election been conducted entirely by mail, Colorado counties would have reduced their costs by 19%.This is consistent with our own econometric analysis
of actual spending patterns over the past decade in North Dakota.33 In that state, a county that only uses absentee ballots saves 18% in election-related costs, over counties in which absentee ballots were rare.Major savings in both Colorado and North Dakotacome from a decrease in part-time personnel costs, which more than offset increases in printing andpostage costs.

Similarly, on page 40, the report states:  


Some states have added early voting and liberalized absentee voting without reducing the ability of voters who wish to vote the old-fashioned way to do so. However, the expansion of vote-by-mail and in-person early voting has, at other times, been accompanying by a reduction in access to the polls on Election Day. When this has happened, the results have not always been positive.

Yet the only example given to justify that assertion is the following reference:


 For instance, a recent study—that took advantage ofa feature of California election law sets up a “naturalexperiment” in which some voters are essentially randomly assigned to vote by mail one election but not the next—found the voters assigned to vote by mail were 13% less likely to vote, than voters whowere allowed to vote in person on Election Day.


Yet the report also states:


All-mail voting has expanded participation by increasing turnoutin elections that have traditionally been low-turnout affairs.

The report underestimates the impact of VBM on participation rates.  No mention is given to explicit participation by registered voters in VBM states versus other states. As Former Oregon 
Secretary of State Phil Keisling recently observed in the NY Times, 
Oregon enjoys among the highest participation rates of eligible voters 
in the United States, despite lagging behind high participation states 
in areas that are often associated with higher voter participation (ses, education, literacy, etc). 

No mention is given to enhanced opportunities to GOTV, catch fraud, ensure that a ballot has been received and counted that exist in VBM states that are not available with inprecinct elections.

Surprisingly, poor effort, IMHO. 

Best regards,

Sal Peralta   




________________________________
 From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
To: law-election at uci.edu 
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:12 AM
Subject: [EL] some blind spots in the CalTech-MIT study on voting technology
 

http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/10/19/voting-technology-project-releases-report-on-technical-problems-with-voting/

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147 
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121019/4d7ac50c/attachment.html>