Lecture 1

PS 120

Outline

• Distortions and political representation• Measuring errors in the electoral process• The VTP and a briefing of the work so far• Introduction to issues of voting technology

Political Representation

• What does it mean to “represent”?– Direct v. indirect – Substantive v. descriptive

• Key assumption is that preferences are translated into public policy in a transparent and direct manner

A Naïve Model

• Utility for candidate J – Uij = F(Vi - Cj)

• Voters cast ballots for J if utility for J is greater than utility for other candidates

• Election process is to count all votes, the candidate with the most votes wins office– Note the assumptions here …

Failures of Representation?

• Citizens do not register• Citizens do not vote• Citizens not informed, candidates obfuscate• Citizens who try to vote have their preference

distorted or not counted by the process (e.g. bad voting machines)

• Distortion of preferences through institutions (e.g. Electoral College)

Let’s Start With Institutions: The Electoral College

• Origins of Electoral College– Founders wanted indirect election of president.– Original system allowed state legislators to determine

method of selecting delegates to Electoral College– Each state allocated one delegate for each U.S. Senator

and House of Representatives member– Winner became president, runner-up got the door prize

(becoming vice president)

Evolution of the Electoral College

• 12th Amendment: forced Electoral College to cast separate ballots for president and vice president; House of Representatives to break ties.

• During 1800’s most states move to direct selection of electors and to “winner take all rules”.

Current System

• Each state gets 1 elector per Senator and House member

• Members of Congress and federal employees cannot be electors

• Political parties select lists of electors; voters cast ballots (directly or effectively) for electors.

Current System

• Whichever party’s slate of electors gets most votes wins (exceptions are Maine and Nebraska where electors are selected by combination of statewide outcome (2) and popular vote in each Congressional district)

• On Monday following second Wednesday of December state electors meet in state capital to cast electoral votes (at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their state)

Pros and Cons?

• Pros: – Maintains federal

checks/balances– Increases minority

power– Requires geographic

distribution of support– Enhances odds of two-

party system

• Cons:– Produces minority presidents– Does not reflect popular will– Nothing stops elector

defections– Decreases voter turnout,

disenfranchises voters in some states

– Enhances odds of two-party system

Should We Keep It?

• Many calls after the 2000 and 2004 presidential election to eliminate the Electoral College

• Would require Constitutional amendment … difficult!• Current proposals: intra-state compact for popular

vote winner; California to break winner-take-all tradition?

• What kind of system would we replace it with, and would that necessarily be superior to what we now have?

Other Distortions: Eligibility and Registration

• Who voted in the 2004 Presidential election?– 215,694,000 voting-aged (VAP)– 197,005,000 CVAP– 142,070,000 registered (72.1% of CVAP)– 125,796,000 voted (63.8% of CVAP)

• Are the preferences of those who vote identical to those who do not? To those who are not registered? To those who are not eligible? Should we care?

Distortion: Errors and “Lost Votes”

• How can we measure the extent to which voters try or want to vote and are foiled:– By mistakes early in the process?– Mistakes when they go to vote?– Voting machine problems?

• Critical research question!

How Can We Measure Machine Errors?

• “Residual vote” analysis: the deviation between votes counted and votes cast.– Most jurisdictions report these data, and such

data goes back in time.– While consistent across time and space,

imperfect: do not necessarily partition machine from voter errors.

How Can We Estimate Other Errors?

• Voters denied service:– Those who show up to vote, but don’t cast a

ballot because of long lines or polling place problems

– Those who try to vote, but can’t because of registration problems

• Census CPS data … asks registered non-voters why they didn’t vote …

Lost Votes: Technology

Lost Votes: Registration

Lost Votes: Polling Places

Lost Votes

Lost Votes?

• Due to problems with absentee voting: UNKNOWN

• Due to fraud or other irregularities: UNKNOWN

• Due to voter suppression and intimidation: UNKNOWN

The Starting Point:Florida 2000

• It was a close election in a pivotal state in a Presidential race• No plan for recount

• Poorly designed ballots? Yes, in a few counties• Poor performance of technology? Yes; Many “lost votes”• Was this typical? Yes• Can this happen again? Yes (Ohio 2004?)• Could the situation be improved? Yes• Have federal and state reforms since 2000 helped? MAYBE

Why did this crisis occur?

Florida, By the Numbers

• There were 6,137,937 million ballots cast, and 5,959,038 Presidential votes counted

• That means there were 179,855 ballots that were blank, spoiled or otherwise were not counted --- 2.93% of ballots cast

• Bush won Florida by only 537 votes!

Florida Optical Scans and Overvotes

• Voter here made a variety of marks on an op-scan ballot

• This is an example of an overvote

                        

                                    

Close

Florida Punchcards and Undervotes

• Here is a Votomatic punchcard seen illuminated from behind

• Clear votes (the entire box punched)

• Possible votes, or undervotes (the boxes are partially punched)

                        

                                    

Close

Florida Uncounted Ballots and Voting Systems

But there were other problems in Florida …

• Long lines at polling places• Severe voter registration issues• Florida had hired an outside company to

examine its voter registration rolls before the election for duplicates, deceased persons, and felons: 182,000 identified, at least 8,000 of these were incorrect and many were purged.

The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project

• Began December 15, 2000• Multi-campus, multi-disciplinary effort• Produced major report in July 2001, Voting:

What Is, What Could Be• Report and research product provided

foundation for passage of federal election reform, “Help America Vote Act” and legislation in many states

Caltech-MIT Voting Project

• Study of current system performance,costs, financing, and practices

• Short term fixes• Longer term recommendations

Purpose of the project

Assess and evaluate current state of systemDevelop recommendations for improvementWhy? Restore voter confidence and reduce the likelihood of another election crisis.

What we are actually doing?

Percent of Counties Percent of 2000 Population Using Technology Covered by Technology 1980 2000 1980 2000 Paper Ballots 40.4 12.5 9.8 1.3 Lever Machines 36.4 14.7 43.9 17.8 Punch Card “VotoMatic” 17.0 17.5 30.0 30.9 “DataVote” 2.1 1.7 2.7 3.5 Optically scanned 0.8 40.2 9.8 27.5 Electronic (DRE) 0.2 8.9 2.3 10.7 Mixed 3.0 4.4 10.4 8.1

Voting Equipment in the 1980 and Voting Equipment in the 1980 and 2000 Elections2000 Elections

1 millionlost votes In 2000

Why Uncounted Votes?

• Voting machines– machine failures

– poor maintenance

– poor ballot design– poor design of voter

interface

• Voting behavior

– “apathetic voters” (poorly informed, not connected, unfamiliar with voting technology)

– “politicized voters” (minor party members, protest voters)

Voting Machines are Just the Tip of the Iceberg!

• Many of the voting systems in use today are problematic

• High uncounted vote rates

• Evidence of variation in uncounted vote rates, holding voting machine type constant, is normatively and legally problematic

• But, there are other pressing problems …

Remember Lost Votes!

Transition 1: Voting Machines

• Nationwide phase-out of poor performing voting machines

• Movement from punchcards, paper and lever machines to optical scanning and electronic voting systems

• Transition has reduced uncounted votes

Uncounted Votes in Seven Largest Florida Counties

Diamonds indicate counties transitioning from punchcards to optical scan; other counties transitioned from punchcard to DRE

Georgia, 1998-2002

The Great E-voting Debate

• Concern rising in certain sectors about the security and integrity of electronic voting

• Calls for integration of “voter verified paper audit trails” (VVPAT) with electronic voting machines

• Source of controversy and debate; unclear whether VVPAT is “the” solution, or even a “partial” solution.

Current Environment

04/19/23 Alvarez; Voting Technology OverviewSource: EDS, October 17, 200838

Lost Votes due to Problems withRegistration and Polling Place Practices

• CPS: 3%-8% of registered non-voters had registration problems (1-3 million lost votes in 2000)

• CPS: 1%-3% of registered non-voters had polling place problems (long lines and other problems lost 1 million votes in 2000)

Recommendations:

•Computerized registration information at precincts•Provisional ballots•More pollworkers and training

Transition 2: New VR Practices

• Help America Vote Act 2002– Statewide VR files– First-time registrations provide ID– Files checked against SSA, DMV lists– Potential for better accessibility AND security

• But what will REALLY happen in 2006 and 2008 when they are implemented across the nation?

Transition 3: Conveience votingTransition 3:Absentee, early and supercenter voting

On the rise•On-demand vs. cause•Nearly 30% in California this year•Oregon went to 100%•Very little effect on turnout (small and positive)•Supercenter experiments

•Security vs. access argument•Also true in voter registration debates

•Internet voting, other convenience voting ideas (telephone, SMS)•In the future•System security issues•Field testing•Too early for widespread implementation

Rise of Convenience-Based Absentee Voting

Absentee ballots as a % of votes cast

A Tradeoff Between Accessibility and Fraud?

California Secretary of State’s Election Fraud Investigation UnitDatabase, 1994-2002.

Election Fraud Convictions In California, 1994-2002

There were 60 election fraud convictions, 1994-2002

Where Have We Made Progress Since 2000?

?

Maybe?

Some progress

Bottom lineRate of non-precinct voting is rising rapidlyAbsentee voting for those who have no reasonable alternative is necessaryAbsentee voting on demand is a convenience, BUT...Significant potential for large-scale fraud and vote-buying; detection problemEarly voting is a better alternative to on-demand absentee voting

Non-precinct Voting