Report says there’s still time to make needed changes by Nov 6

WASHINGTON – In what could be the most fiercely-contested election in U.S. history, Pennsylvania officials are poorly prepared to audit election results and ensure that reported vote totals match the actual vote, a new, national voting study suggests.

The report, “Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Voting Technology Preparedness,” says that proper audits are possible in only some Pennsylvania counties because most of the state uses electronic voting systems that do not provide a voter-verifiable record. In “swing” states like Pennsylvania, where neither presidential candidate is expected to roll up a substantial majority, even a small error in vote counting could be decisive.

“High-profile elections in the past decade have been decided by razor thin margins,” the report notes. “The 2000 presidential race was decided by 537 votes in Florida; the Washington State gubernatorial race in 2004 by 129 votes, and a Minnesota Senate race in 2008 by just 312. Every national election since 2000 has seen voting system failures stem from machines that won’t start, memory cards that can’t be read, mis-tallied votes, lost votes and more. Under the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution, as well as by statute throughout the country, every vote must be counted as cast.”

The report emphasizes that state election officials still have time before the election to make changes that would protect the integrity of the vote. The study was released Wednesday by three non-partisan organizations focused on voting – the Verified Voting Foundation, the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic, and Common Cause.

“Pennsylvania needs to improve its efforts to prepare for the upcoming election,” said Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting. “No election system is perfect, and ensuring fair, accurate elections is a national effort. Our elections are complex – we have so many jurisdictions and varying technologies. Everyone from election officials to citizens should be involved to make sure this process at the very heart of our democracy is healthy.”

The report noted that voting systems routinely fail. In 2008 – the last presidential election year – more than 1,800 problems were reported nationally.

“If history is any indication, machines this November will fail, and votes will be lost,” said Susannah Goodman of Common Cause. “Backup systems like paper ballots need to be put in place in every state to help to verify results.”

The report rates Pennsylvania as “generally good” in comparing its voting and vote-counting practices to those of other states and examining its performance in each of five areas:

هل تشترط الدولة بطاقات اقتراع ورقية أو سجلات لكل صوت مُدلى به؟ (في حال تسبب أعطال الكمبيوتر أو الأخطاء البشرية في أخطاء في فرز الأصوات، يمكن لمسؤولي الانتخابات استخدام بطاقات الاقتراع الأصلية لتحديد الإجماليات الصحيحة. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، يمكن استخدام بطاقات الاقتراع الورقية لتدقيق فرز الأصوات الآلي).

- هل لدى الدولة خطط طوارئ كافية في كل مركز اقتراع في حالة تعطل الأجهزة؟

- هل تحمي الدولة الناخبين العسكريين والأجانب وبطاقات الاقتراع الخاصة بهم من التغيير والتلاعب وانتهاكات الخصوصية من خلال ضمان عدم الإدلاء ببطاقات الاقتراع المميزة عبر الإنترنت؟

- هل قامت الدولة بإجراء تدقيق ما بعد الانتخابات لتحديد ما إذا كانت النتائج المبلغ عنها إلكترونيًا صحيحة؟

- هل تستخدم الدولة ممارسات قوية لمطابقة الأصوات وتصنيفها للمساعدة في ضمان عدم فقدان أي بطاقات اقتراع أو إضافتها أثناء فرز الأصوات وتجميعها من المستوى المحلي إلى مستوى الولاية؟

The highest rated states overall were Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin, while South Carolina, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi were ranked near the bottom.

قالت بيني فينيتيس، المديرة المشاركة لعيادة التقاضي الدستوري بكلية الحقوق بجامعة روتجرز: "لا ينبغي أن يُفقد أي صوت في انتخابات عام ٢٠١٢. فالتكنولوجيا متوفرة للتحقق من الأصوات، ويمكن تطبيق إجراءات في جميع أنحاء البلاد لضمان احتساب كل صوت، تمامًا كما ينص الدستور".