|This article was posted at Ed Felten's Freedom-to-Tinker Blog and is reposted here with permission.
election officials are hand-counting millions of ballots, as they
perform a full recount in the ultra-close Senate race between Norm
Coleman and Al Franken. Minnesota Public Radio offers a fascinating gallery
of ballots that generated disputes about voter intent.
A good example is this one:
A scanning machine would see the Coleman and Franken bubbles both
filled, and call this ballot an overvote. But this might be a Franken
vote, if the voter filled in both slots by mistake, then wrote "No"
next to Coleman's name.
Other cases are more difficult, like this one:
Do we call this an overvote, because two bubbles are filled? Or do we
give the vote to Coleman, because his bubble was filled in more
Then there's this ballot, which is destined to be famous if the recount descends into ligitation:
[Insert your own joke here.]
This one raises yet another issue:
Here the problem is the fingerprint on the ballot. Election laws
prohibit voters from putting distinguishing marks on their ballots, and
marked ballots are declared invalid, for good reason: uniquely marked
ballots can be identified later, allowing a criminal to pay the voter
for voting "correctly" or punish him for voting "incorrectly". Is the
fingerprint here an identifying mark? And if so, how can you reject
this ballot and accept the distinctive "Lizard People" ballot?
Many e-voting experts advocate optical-scan voting. The ballots
above illustrate one argument against opscan: filling in the ballot is
a free-form activity that can create ambiguous or identifiable ballots.
This creates a problem in super-close elections, because ambiguous
ballots may make it impossible to agree on who should have won the
Wearing my pure-scientist hat (which I still own, though it
sometimes gets dusty), this is unsurprising: an election is a
measurement process, and all measurement processes have built-in errors
that can make the result uncertain. This is easily dealt with, by
saying something like this: Candidate A won by 73 votes, plus or minus
a 95% confidence interval of 281 votes. Or perhaps this: Candidate A
won with 57% probability. Problem solved!
In the real world, of course, we need to declare exactly one
candidate to be the winner, and a lot can be at stake in the decision.
If the evidence is truly ambiguous, somebody is going to end up feeling
cheated, and the most we can hope for is a sense that the rules were
properly followed in determining the outcome.
Still, we need to keep this in perspective. By all reports, the
number of ambiguous ballots in Minnesota is miniscule, compared to the
total number cast in Minnesota. Let's hope that, even if some
individual ballots don't speak clearly, the ballots taken collectively
leave no doubt as to the winner.
Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
You must login to see comments...