Easy Reader

All this week, the Secretary of State’s office is offering demonstrations of and soliciting public comment on the three finalists for Connecticut’s electronic voting machines. The line was long at Monday’s demonstration at Buckland Hills Mall in Manchester (easily an hour wait), but well worth it to see what we’re in for when we return to the polls next year.

The following is a breakdown of the three machines being demonstrated and the pros and cons of each.

Machine 1: Diebold AccuVote TS-X

This voting machine looks like an ATM, which is not surprising given Diebold’s involvement in that market. According to the literature, to use the machine, you take the plastic card—which looks like a basic ATM or credit card—given to you by a poll worker, and insert it into the machine. You then use the touch screen to make your choices for each race. When you are nearing completion, you are shown a summary screen which you review and then choose to cast if it looks good. You can touch individual races or “Review Ballot” to make changes. I have no idea how legible the text on the screen is or how easy to operate this machine is as when I was observing it, they were only showing the “Insert your card” screen.

I also did not get to see the voter verified paper trail add-on in action, but it consisted of a little slot with a magnifying plastic door over it in the lower right-hand corner of the machine, where one would assume the paper “receipt” drops. The plastic flap was open when I was viewing the machine, so I am uncertain as to whether the slip is removed by a person or not.

This machine does offer a set of headphones for someone with disabilities and a numeric keypad which I imagine could be used for making selections, but I was amazed to find that the keypad did not have any braille markings on it to indicate the number. I realize not all blind or visually-impaired people can read braille, but something as basic as the numbers zero through nine can be easily picked up and would greatly improve the usability of this device.

Machine 2: Danaher (Guardian) ELECTronic 1242

This electronic voting machine is not exactly what I imagine when think electronic voting system. It is electronic, so I suppose it qualifies, but it feels more like playing a game of Battleship or Operation than a casting a vote during an election.

The machine consists of a giant light-up board covered by a large sheet of paper with all of the offices and candidates on it. Each race has a blinking red light associated with it. The voter’s job is to extinguish each red light by pressing on the numbered box corresponding to the candidate they choose. A voter can change his or her mind by clicking the box corresponding to the previously chosen candidate to de-select him or her and then make a new choice. When voting is complete, the voter pushes the large, green “VOTE” button at the bottom which casts the voter’s virtual ballot.

Personally, I found the “interface” a little awkward to use as seeing the red lights through the paper was not necessarily easy. I also wonder how easy it would be for someone with macular degeneration or other visual impairment, short of blindness. As for the blind, it appears that they are out of luck with this machine. I couldn’t find a single accessibility feature apart from it being able to be used by someone in a wheelchair (and I question whether the text at the very top of the paper, giving instructions on the machine’s use are actually readable from a height of 3-4 feet). I also failed to see a paper trail on this machine, but perhaps I just missed it.

Machine 3: Avante Vote-Trakker EVC308-SPR

This was the most promising of the three voting machines exhibited, but it too had its drawbacks. The interface was a touch screen, but the arrangement of the races and questions demonstrated was anything but intuitive (obviously a byproduct of developers “designing”). One of the better features of this machine was the ability to “zoom in” on a question or race so that it was essentially all you saw on the screen. The write-in process was a little clunky, requiring the use of a keyboard with no real place to store it for easy access. And who wants to be bothered with juggling a keyboard while trying to vote?

The most interesting feature of this machine was its paper trail. Each vote cast has a unique serial number (which is untraceable to an individual voter, of course), and when you are almost ready to cast your ballot, a paper tally of your votes is displayed in the box next to the machine for you to look at. If it is correct, you cast your votes via the interface. If it is incorrect, you can return to the voting system and change your choices (or alert a poll worker to a discrepancy if what you see on the screen is not what is on the paper) before viewing a new paper “receipt.” All of the paper receipts are kept in the locked box which displays them in the event of a recount.
This machine is pretty accessible to mobility and visually impaired individuals although those with complete blindness would still require some assistance to cast their ballot.

Final thoughts

I am a little disappointed in the range of devices being offered to Connecticut. Perhaps this is a reflection of the poor quality of voting systems available or the poor turnout in the response to the state’s RFP.

My main concern stems from the fact that our current voting machines in Connecticut were originally designed in the late 1800’s (though they were, I imagine, built in the ’40s or ’50s) and we are still using them. Granted, they are mechanical, and changes to a mechanical device are a little more difficult than software upgrades. Still, it is likely that we will have these electronic machines for many decades to come, so we should have the best machines we can.

And this doesn’t even begin to address the potential issues with the underlying software incorrectly recording (or failing to record) votes. I really wish that the companies making the software that powers these machines would have to make their source code available to the public so experts in the field could examine and suggest improvements to the algorithms that will (inevitably) power our democracy.

If you are interested in seeing these machines first-hand and offering your comments to the Secretary of State’s office, please attend one of the remaining exhibitions.

Here in Connecticut, the Secretary of State is getting ready to purchase new computerized voting machines and is doing an exhibition of the different options throughout the state’s five Congressional Districts. As computerized voting is such a hot topic right now, I highly recommend anyone and everyone who lives in my state go to one of the exhibitions and offer some sort of public comment. We need to ensure we get safe voting machines that actually record what we intend them to.

Here are the dates:

• District One: Manchester
  11/14/05, 10am - 9pm
  Buckland Hills Mall, 194 Buckland Hills Dr., Manchester
• District Two: North Windham
  11/15/05, 10am - 8pm
  Eastern Connecticut State University, 83 N. Windham Rd, North Windham
• District Three: Woodbridge
  11/16/05, 9am - 8pm
  Jewish Community Center of Greater New Haven, 360 Amity Rd, Woodbridge
• District Four: Bridgeport
  11/17/05, 9am - 8pm
  Bridgeport City Hall, 45 Lyon Terrace, Bridgeport
• District Five: Southbury
  11/18/05, 9am - 8pm
  Southbury Town Hall, 501 Main Street, Southbury

Kelly and I will be hosting a screening of WAL-MART: the High Cost of Low Price next Wednesday (16 November) if you’re interested in attending. If you’re not in the area, you can search for a screening in a town near you. This should be a very interesting film and I am looking forward to watching it (especially after reading John Dicker’s The United States of WAL-MART). We have room for a total of seven to watch comfortably and RSVP’s will be taken at the screening page.

As I mentioned to Ian earlier today, Dave and I were discussing having the jsTrace window keep pace with whatever the most current line is spit out to it. A few hours later, here it is: jsTrace 1.3. I have some other stuff (read: paying projects) that need my attention, so I am putting jsTrace down for a bit. Dave & I will be posting a few more demos of its use in different situations, but as far as further development goes, I’m gonna be hands-off for a bit to let you all get a chance to participate.

And if you’re in the participatory mood, check out this site I built with Adaptive Path. I will be posting some details about the project and how I accomplished certain design features once Kel’s campaign’s over and life gets a little less hectic.

As some of you are no doubt aware, I am quite a political guy: often known to break into a diatribe against the Wal-Marts of this world and injustice in general. It’s odd because I despised politics as a teenager and young adult. Many events and activities in my life contributed to my relatively recent transformation into a political (I hate to use the term) “activist,” but I will save that discussion for another time. Right now I want to talk about Kelly, my wife.

Kelly is an amazing woman and her influence has, quite literally, made me a better person. She is kind, compassionate, and giving while at the same time never afraid to tell you exactly what she’s thinking. She can cut through the bullshit and get right to the point without being abrassive and also has the ability to look at both sides of an argument and suss out some common ground. These are some of the many reasons I love her and they are also the reasons I think her recent interest in helping steer our town is a good thing.

That’s right, Kelly is running for office – our town’s legislative council to be exact. The thing I find most impressive is that so many of the people in our neighborhood—no matter what their political affiliation—have come out in support of her. They obviously see in her all of the great characteristics I do.

Our town is deeply divided right now—as many Connecticut towns are—because there is not a balance of power. The Democrats have a supermajority in elected offices—though less than half of our towns voters are registered as such—and little competition from the Republicans. Any of you who live in one party towns probably know the story: the major party has no competition, so it breeds its own internally. The Dems are constantly infighting, with one faction undermining the other on a nearly perpetual basis, which does little to improve the state of our town or the use of our tax dollars. I bring this up because Kelly is running on the Green Party ticket. I think this is a good thing because third parties provide a much-needed balance to the political process, acting as both watchdogs and luminaries by keeping the two major parties on task and bringing to light issues and ideas often overlooked or simply unknown to them.

I am really hopeful for Kel’s campaign and I think she has a really good shot. The seat she is going for—in the town’s 5th District—has no incumbant and neither major party candidate is as in tune with what is going on in the neighborhood as she is. The more people she meets, the more she attracts to her cause… it’s really impressive to see grassroots politics in action. I think the main attraction is that she genuinely listens to their concerns and wants to truly represent them on the council, not just act on their behalf.

At this point in my life, I have no interest in political office. I am content to be the man behind the woman, making her a kick-ass website.