Larry,
I am not sure I completely understand your question, but I will attempt
to answer it to the best of my ability.
The undervote takes into consideration a cast ballot that has at least
one unanswered question. It could include any one of the four
questions, or combination of the questions. Each unanswered question is
counted as an undervote.
Votewatch placed poll monitors inside a polling location in Santa Clara
county. Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties utilized the same voting
equipment and ballot design for this election. We saw, before Tuesday
morning was over, that there was an issue with voters who were trying to
answer Question 1 using this ballot type. For example, our Santa Clara
poll monitor regularly witnessed poll workers announcing, in a loud
voice, their answer to the question "how do I vote for Gray Davis?"
every time it was asked by a voter.
We also saw, from our own survey work, that approximately 15% of voters
realized that they left a question blank, either unintentionally or
intentionally.
Furthermore, we also received anecdotal evidence that voters were
missing Question 1, with several comments from voters on Election Day.
Even with the above, we saw from our online survey that 76% of voters
were either very confident or confident that their vote will be counted
correctly. This number jumped to 91% in our surveys administered at
polling locations on Election Day.
________________________________
Steven Hertzberg
Votewatch, a nonprofit Corporation
San Francisco, California 94123
http://www.votewatch.us
Your Eye on Elections
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Larry
Levine
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 4:19 PM
To: mmcdon@gmu.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu; election@csd.uwm.edu
Subject: Re: California Turnout Update and Undervote Analysis
Does the "undervote" on the replacement matter take into consideration
the possibility that some voters may have made a decision to vote
(probably
against) on the recall and not vote for a replacement candidate? Also,
is there, or will there be, any demographic data developed (particularly
level of education) to differentiate between the various voting systems?
Larry Levine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>; <election@csd.uwm.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 4:35 PM
Subject: California Turnout Update and Undervote Analysis
The California Secretary of State now reports 8,374,804 ballots have
been cast, for a turnout rate among eligible voters of 39.6%. The
final
turnout
rate will probably creep up in the coming days as the remaining
absentee, provisional, and write-in votes are tallied. From talking
with my friends on the ground in California, I am expecting a final
tally somewhere in the neighborhood of 8.5 million, or a turnout rate
among eligible voters of approximately 40.5%. This turnout rate will
be higher than the 37.2% rate in 2002 and lower than the 45.4% rate in
1998. It is an unusual special election, but is not a record vote for
a governor's election.
As for the undervotes (those persons casting a ballot, but not voting
for
an
item on the ballot) and voting systems, using the current numbers
available
at the Secretary of State's web site, I have calculated the following
undervoting rates:
Punchcards
Recall undervotes: 7.1%
Replacement undervotes: 9.0%
Optical scan
Recall undervotes: 5.0%
Replacement undervotes: 9.4%
Touchscreen
Recall undervotes: 1.4%
Replacement undervotes: 6.7%
Exit Poll (statewide)
Recall undervotes: 2.6%
Replacement undervotes: 7.0%
One other bit of information of interest:
Vote "Yes" Recall
Punchcards 50.0%
Optical scan 55.0%
Touchscreen 50.8%
Statewide, there were 7,989,828 ballots cast on question 1, the
recall,
for
a turnout rate of 37.8%. This was 95.4% of all ballots cast, for an
undervote of 384,976. If we assume the exit poll is correct, then
4.6% minus 2.6% or 2.0% of the persons who cast ballots intended to
vote on the recall, but their vote was not recorded. The number of
undervote errors would therefore be approximately 160,000 (a little
less than the 178,170 vote differential between the "no on recall" and
vote for Schwarzenegger). Interestingly, we see that even though
voters who voted by touchscreen and punchcard were very similar in
their preference for recalling Davis, 1.4%
of
touchscreen voters did not vote in the recall while 7.1% of punchcard
(and 5.0% of optical scan) voters did not.
On question 2, the replacement, 7,698,407 persons voted for a turnout
rate of 36.4%. This was 91.9% of all ballots cast, for an undervote
of
676,397.
Again, if we assume the exit poll was correct, 8.1% minus 7.0% or 1.9%
of the persons who cast ballots intended to vote for a replacement
candidate, but their vote was not recorded. The number of undervote
errors would be approximately, 150,000. We see the same pattern as
with the recall
question: 6.7% of touchscreen voters did not vote for a replacement
candidate, while 9.0% of punchcard and 9.4% of optical scan voters did
not.
In both cases, touchscreen voters had smaller undervote rates than the
punchcard and optical scan voters, and also had a rate smaller than
the
exit
poll indicated. Either of two conclusions may be reached: touchscreen
recorded fewer errors, or more people were prompted to vote by having
a computer screen tell them to do so. The difference of undervote
rates between systems provides evidence for the first conclusion,
while the difference between the exit poll and the touchscreen
undervote rate
provides
evidence for the second conclusion (though sampling error on the exit
poll may account for this evidence, too).
If the prompting of the touchscreens induced more touchscreen voters
to completely fill out the ballot, this may have some profound
implications
for
future elections. If voters feel obliged to complete the touchscreen
prompts, I image that they will be more likely to vote for downballot
races,
and thus there will be less rolloff. (The proposition voting is a
clear test of the hypothesis.) If voters do behave in this manner, it
will be curious to see what information will govern their decision
making process...will they use partisanship as a guide when it is
available?
Finally, as a fun aside consider...
Schwartzman vote (as percent of question 2):
Punchcards 0.17%
Optical scan 0.12%
Touchscreen 0.11%
I will post the data used to make these calculations on my website
later this evening (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm).
==================================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor
Dept of Public and International Affairs
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Office: 703-993-4191
Fax: 703-993-1399
Efax: 561-431-3190
mmcdon@gmu.edu
http://elections.gmu.edu/