Assuming that the last sentence of Professor Scarberry's post is true, "And
these punch machines have to be a lot cheaper than
optical or electronic machines,"
Is it possible that an astute registrar would choose to use punchcard
machines, thus saving money on apparatus, and use the money saved to (a)
train poll workers, (b) provide more voting places, or do a other things
that would increase the total number of votes cast? Could a registrar
reduce the number of people standing in line for 4-5 hours by using cheap
punch card machines? Could the number of votes gained by, e.g., more,
better staffed polling places exceed the number of ballots lost through
using less expensive punch cards? Has anyone ever looked at that?
I suspect that the focus on undervotes has something to do with the fact
that the undervote can be easily measured, and political scientists love
things that can be easily measured. But before anyone starts talking about
uniform voting systems, it may be prudent to look at other factors that
affect the number of votes cast and counted.
George Waters
bokarie@sbcglobal.net
916/483-6367
916/483-7033 (fax)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu>
To: "'election-law '" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: RE: Is it Possible Kerry Lost Ohio Because of Punch Cards?
In Ventura County, California (northwest of Los Angeles) we use punch
cards,
but they are not the Votomatics that were used in Florida. Ballot cards
containing no more than perhaps six races on each side fit into a small
machine that has a punching mechanism that slides up and down to position
the punch next to the names. The punch is a very solid positive mechanism,
like a hole punch, but it punches out a small rectangular hole; I don't
think hanging chads are common at all. It doesn't seem to me that there is
any need for us to change. Perhaps others have data on the failure rate of
such punch systems, but I'd be surprised if it was higher than an optical
or
electronic system. And these punch machines have to be a lot cheaper than
optical or electronic machines.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
-----Original Message-----
From: DANIEL TOKAJI
To: election-law
Sent: 11/4/2004 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Is it Possible Kerry Lost Ohio Because of Punch Cards?
The answer to the question posed in the subject line is a definite "no,"
and I say this as one of the lawyers in the ACLU of Ohio's case
challenging punch cards. There were approximately 76,000 residual votes
(combined overvotes and undervotes) cast with punch cards in Ohio this
year, according to press reports. Punch cards reportedly had about a
1.9% residual vote rate. The lowest you can hope for with better
technologies is probably around 0.3%-0.7%, since some voters in every
election intentionally undervote -- they deliberately choose not to cast
a vote for President. That means that around 48,000 - 64,000 Ohio votes
were lost that would likely have been counted with better technology.
It is probably true that Kerry lost more votes due to the use of punch
cards than Bush. In 2000, about two-thirds of the precincts with the
worst residual vote rates (i.e., those in the top 10%) went for Bush.
But even assuming that Kerry lost two votes for every vote lost by Bush,
that amounts to a net gain of no more than about 21,000 votes on the
most optimistic (from Kerry's perspective) assumptions -- far less than
the 135,000 by which Kerry was behind last time I checked. Henry Brady
or other empirical researchers can probably come up with a more precise
estimate, but I think that this back-of-the envelope calculation is
probably in the ballpark.
Punch cards probably did spell the difference between defeat and victory
in Florida 2000. They did not in Ohio 2004. I do think it's imperative
that Ohio and other states still using punch cards get rid of them, and
replace them with either precinct-count optical scan or electronic
machines. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that states must go
to a uniform system, since both of these technologies perform well in
terms of lowering the number of residual votes.
Dan
Daniel P. Tokaji
Assistant Professor of Law
Ohio State University
Moritz College of Law
55 W. 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
voice 614.292.6566
fax 614.688.8422
email tokaji.1@osu.edu
http://equalvote.blogspot.com
<<Re: Is it Possible Kerry Lost Ohio Because of Punch Cards?>>