John Ahmann, one of the key engineers involved with the Votomatic machines since the technology left IBM, provided these two items to me to clarify some of the issues he has seen raised about the design and operation of the voting machines.
If 1 out of 1,000 voters touches a presidential punch position and doesn’t punch, is this a vote? Should it be counted when all the rest of the ballot is clearly punched?
If there is a demonstration given to each voter and the voter punches a demonstrator card, he knows what a punch feels like.
If the voter instructions tell a voter to check his ballot and he doesn’t, or doesn’t clearly vote for the president, should we decide or guess for the voter if he voted and how he voter or for whom he voted?
Stylus leave precise indents/witness marks in ballot cards. Many of the ballots counted with dimples do not show a stylus mark.
Dimples on chad should be examined to determine the cause of the “pucker” or dimple. It must be caused by the stylus tip.
Not a fingernail, pin prick, thumb tack, rub or crease from handling, i.e., hand ring mark from holding the ballot while in line while waiting for the booth to vote.
If voting for the President is the most important objective to the voter, wouldn’t the voter punch his ballot distinctly and exactly?
How can the voting devices be in worn out condition? I understand the election warehouse personnel say they are in “top” condition in Palm Beach County. It appears there is an attempt to count any dimple whether it was caused by a stylus or whatever!!
by John Ahmann
When Dr. Joseph P. Harris came to IBM to suggest they consider developing a voting system using the portapunch, he probably never dreamed that 40 years later the United States of America would be paralyzed in its voting for President because his voting system was accused of being flawed or inaccurate.
Indeed, the simple data recording device he proposed in 1960 had only one moving part—the template. The template would guide the voter to punch through the chad, thus removing the “CHAD” which would register the vote of his choice. The ballot card could then be accurately machine counted, speeding up election results and improving vote tabulation accuracy.
Now, 40 years later, his associate professor, who helped initially design the Vote Recorder, claims the system is flawed. Professor Rouverol says:
In sworn testimony other well-meaning election related leaders in the Voting Industry have followed his lead and quoted his assertions as being gospel.
Even a presidential candidate has said this voting system is “old and cheap, antiquated, and found in poor neighborhoods”.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gore is misinformed as are Mr. Rouverol and the followers of his theories.
Indeed, we have tested the “T” strips of 25-year-old Votomatics from Florida. They haven’t hardened more than a few percent. The IBM formula developed 35 years ago prevents excessive hardening of “T” strips. Newer polyurethane rubber “T” strips are of excellent quality (resiliency and longevity) according to chemistry experts in the field.
The ballots used today are more precise than their 1960 predecessors. The punch out reliability and ballot consistency has vastly improved. Swiss-made dies are expensive but very precise.
The “CHAD” reservoir beneath the voting device was substantially enlarged since 1972 with the developing of the Model III Votomatic which holds over 1,000,000 (one million) “CHAD” and still allows the device to function properly. Most counties in Florida clean out the few thousand “CHADS” at least once in an election cycle (2 years).
The much publicized “Butterfly Ballot” is a fact of life in western states and Chicago. It has been in use for at least 15 years with little or no problems except it takes more care in printing and aligning the arrows on front and back of the page. Dade County uses the Butterfly Ballot. This ballot design was necessitated when Federal Law mandated multiple language ballots in ethnically diverse jurisdictions. Most people welcomed the Butterfly Ballot as improving voter access, readability, and outreach to minorities.
Voters in Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Bellaire California, to name a few, may be surprised at Mr. Gore’s statement that their voting system is only used in “poor neighborhoods”.
When professor Harris developed the Votomatic, his expectation was that voters would punch out the “CHAD” on the card. The force required to perform this act is between 6 and 13 ounces of downward pressure. Simply allowing the weight of your hand to descend on the stylus is usually more than enough force to punch out the “CHAD”. Some of the ballots in Florida were not punched for any candidate on the first row. They didn’t vote for president. The Democrats are asking that any dimple or evidence at all of “CHAD“ being touched should be counted as a vote. Obviously these ballots weren’t punched, all the way through, per the instructions. Voters did not let the weight of their hand descend on any of these punch positions on these ballots.
No evidence can be found that any of the aforementioned problems with the ballots or voting devices exist.
In other words, the wild accusations are unfounded. The voting devices are not defective or improperly maintained, nor were the ballots defective.
Simply put, the Democrats want the vote tabulation rules to be changed to allow dimpled ballots to be counted as votes and only in Democratic strong-hold counties, of course. The rules in West Palm Beach at the start of this election were in place for ten years, since 1990. These rules are practically identical to the rules of counting in use by the State of California where the Votomatic voting system was developed. Dimples on ballots do not indicate the intent of the voter unless the entire ballot is dimpled and no valid punches are made thereon (California statutes).
There is an old saying that applies here “you don’t hange horses in the middle of the stream”. You shouldn’t change counting rules in the middle of an election.
Copyright © 2000, John Ahmann
This page was last modified on .
Related Information |