A. Ballot Count Accuracy
Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies in data where no thorough or reasonable explanation is provided by election officials. The table below shows all districts with ballot count discrepancies. In twelve (12) of these districts the scanner counted more ballots than reported as counted by hand; in six (6) of these districts, the scanner counted fewer ballots than were counted by hand.
|
Nov 2010 |
|||
| Scanner Counted Ballots | Hand Counted Ballots | Difference | Percent Difference |
| 2409 | 17 | 2392 | -99.3% |
| 796 | 943 | 147 | 18.5% |
| 772 | 761 | -11 | -1.4% |
| 1206 | 1216 | 10 | 0.8% |
| 1292 | 1284 | -8 | -0.6% |
| 364 | 362 | -2 | -0.5% |
| 1982 | 1972 | -10 | -0.5% |
| 1432 | 1438 | 6 | 0.4% |
| 1956 | 1948 | -8 | -0.4% |
| 386 | 385 | -1 | -0.3% |
| 1213 | 1216 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 2036 | 2041 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 1269 | 1266 | -3 | -0.2% |
| 1718 | 1714 | -4 | -0.2% |
| 1477 | 1480 | 3 | 0.2% |
| 1414 | 1412 | -2 | -0.1% |
| 845 | 844 | -1 | -0.1% |
| 1183 | 1182 | -1 | -0.1% |
Table 1: Discrepancies in Numbers of Ballots Counted by
Hand vs. Counted by Scanner[1] in Eighteen Districts, November 2010 Audits
We have omitted reports from the table where zero ballots were reported for one or the other of the two counts.
Based on observer reports, we do not believe that all of the hand counts are accurate because of the questionable counting methods observed. On the other hand, because of these differences, we also have no basis to conclude that the scanners counted all ballots accurately.
In general, when compared to the November 2009 report except for two extreme cases, there is little difference in the performance of the optical scanners and the election officials in counting ballots:
|
Nov 2009 |
|||
| Scanner Counted Ballots | Hand Counted Ballots | Difference | Percent Difference |
| 919 | 904 | 15 | 1.6% |
| 1315 | 1298 | 17 | 1.3% |
| 771 | 762 | 9 | 1.2% |
| 1164 | 1169 | -5 | 0.4% |
| 492 | 494 | -2 | 0.4% |
| 1046 | 1050 | -4 | 0.4% |
| 1007 | 1004 | 3 | 0.3% |
| 677 | 679 | -2 | 0.3% |
| 1362 | 1366 | -4 | 0.3% |
| 449 | 450 | -1 | 0.2% |
| 1900 | 1904 | -4 | 0.2% |
| 961 | 963 | -2 | 0.2% |
| 762 | 763 | -1 | 0.1% |
| 861 | 860 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 2046 | 2044 | 2 | 0.1% |
| 1877 | 1876 | 1 | 0.1% |
| 3357 | 3358 | -1 | 0.0% |
Table 2: Discrepancies in Numbers of Ballots Counted by
Hand vs. Counted by Scanner[2] in Seventeen Districts, November 2009 Audits
B. Vote Count Accuracy
Even considering confusion over ballots with questionable votes, an analysis of the district reports submitted to the Secretary of the State indicates that vote count discrepancies remain.
|
Nov 2010 |
|||||
| Col C Machine Totals (tape) | Col D Undisputed Vote Totals | Col E Questionable Vote Totals | Col F Overall Hand Count Totals (D+E) | Difference | Percent Difference |
| 776 | 569 | 37 | 606 | 170 | 21.9% |
| 759 | 559 | 36 | 595 | 164 | 21.6% |
| 695 | 513 | 30 | 543 | 152 | 21.9% |
| 881 | 936 | 0 | 936 | -55 | 6.2% |
| 139 | 99 | 6 | 105 | 34 | 24.5% |
| 113 | 81 | 3 | 84 | 29 | 25.7% |
| 888 | 917 | 0 | 917 | -29 | 3.3% |
| 84 | 56 | 2 | 58 | 26 | 31.0% |
| 692 | 717 | 0 | 717 | -25 | 3.6% |
| 452 | 476 | 0 | 476 | -24 | 5.3% |
| 745 | 767 | 0 | 767 | -22 | 3.0% |
| 689 | 668 | 0 | 668 | 21 | 3.0% |
| 40 | 21 | 1 | 22 | 18 | 45.0% |
| 674 | 692 | 0 | 692 | -18 | 2.7% |
| 914 | 899 | 0 | 899 | 15 | 1.6% |
| 726 | 712 | 0 | 712 | 14 | 1.9% |
| 1023 | 1007 | 2 | 1009 | 14 | 1.4% |
| 1639 | 1625 | 0 | 1625 | 14 | 0.9% |
| 1292 | 1279 | 0 | 1279 | 13 | 1.0% |
| 796 | 809 | 0 | 809 | -13 | 1.6% |
| 562 | 550 | 0 | 550 | 12 | 2.1% |
| 55 | 43 | 0 | 43 | 12 | 21.8% |
| 871 | 883 | 0 | 883 | -12 | 1.4% |
| 1300 | 1311 | 0 | 1311 | -11 | 0.8% |
| 645 | 625 | 10 | 635 | 10 | 1.6% |
| 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 10 | 43.5% |
| 1422 | 1412 | 0 | 1412 | 10 | 0.7% |
| 559 | 569 | 2 | 571 | -10 | 1.8% |
Table 3: Candidate counts where Hand-Counted Votes and Machine-Counted Votes Show Discrepancies of 10 Or More Votes 2010 Audit.
The table on the previous page presents, by number and percentage, vote differences greater than 10 between hand-counted votes and machine-counted votes when all ballots with questionable votes are included[3] and all votes for cross-endorsed candidates are totaled.
Based on observer reports, we do not believe that all of the hand counts are accurate because of the questionable counting methods observed. On the other hand, because of these differences, we also have no basis to conclude that the scanners counted all votes accurately.
In general, when compared to November 2009, the November 2010 data shows a much worse performance in counting votes by the optical scanners, election officials, or both than in 2010:
|
Nov 2009 |
|||||
| Col C Machine Totals (tape) | Col D Undisputed Vote Totals | Col E Questionable Vote Totals | Col F Overall Hand Count Totals (D+E) | Difference | Percent Difference |
| 2042 | 2103 | 0 | 2103 | -61 | 3.0% |
| 612 | 541 | 11 | 552 | 60 | -9.8% |
| 1045 | 1088 | 0 | 1088 | -43 | 4.1% |
| 556 | 518 | 11 | 529 | 27 | -4.9% |
| 932 | 910 | 0 | 910 | 22 | -2.4% |
| 1488 | 1466 | 0 | 1466 | 22 | -1.5% |
| 1453 | 1435 | 0 | 1435 | 18 | -1.2% |
| 1279 | 1263 | 0 | 1263 | 16 | -1.3% |
| 1140 | 1124 | 0 | 1124 | 16 | -1.4% |
| 992 | 976 | 0 | 976 | 16 | -1.6% |
| 1323 | 1309 | 0 | 1309 | 14 | -1.1% |
| 1198 | 1184 | 0 | 1184 | 14 | -1.2% |
| 1420 | 1407 | 0 | 1407 | 13 | -0.9% |
| 588 | 567 | 8 | 575 | 13 | -2.2% |
| 267 | 253 | 2 | 255 | 12 | -4.5% |
| 1067 | 1055 | 0 | 1055 | 12 | -1.1% |
| 2083 | 2072 | 0 | 2072 | 11 | -0.5% |
| 496 | 480 | 5 | 485 | 11 | -2.2% |
| 775 | 760 | 4 | 764 | 11 | -1.4% |
| 465 | 439 | 16 | 455 | 10 | -2.2% |
| 387 | 373 | 4 | 377 | 10 | -2.6% |
| 973 | 963 | 0 | 963 | 10 | -1.0% |
| 552 | 532 | 10 | 542 | 10 | -1.8% |
Table 4: Candidate counts where Hand-Counted Votes and Machine-Counted Votes Show Discrepancies of 10 Or More Votes 2009 Audit.
The following table shows the number of candidate counts with various levels of count differences between the optical scanners and the hand counts, considering ballots with questionable votes:[4]
|
Nov 2010 |
||
| Count Difference | Number of Candidate Counts | % Of All Counts |
| 0 | 317 | 57.3% |
| 1-3 | 147 | 26.6% |
| 4-6 | 36 | 6.5% |
| 7-9 | 25 | 4.5% |
| >=10 | 28 | 5.1% |
| Total | 100.00% | |
| Average Difference: | 3.2 votes | |
Table 5: Distribution by Difference of Candidate Counts between
Hand-Counted Votes and Machine-Counted Votes 2010 Audit.
Looking at the data this way and comparing with 2009, we see that 2009 differences were not only less, but based on a significantly larger number of total counts:
| Nov 2009 | ||
| Count Difference | Number of Candidate Counts | % Of All Counts |
| 0 | 427 | 56.6% |
| 1-3 | 233 | 30.9% |
| 4-6 | 57 | 7.6% |
| 7-9 | 14 | 1.9% |
| [5]>=10 | 23 | 3.1% |
| Total | 754 | 100.00% |
| Average Difference: | 1.6 votes | |
Table 6: Distribution by Difference of Candidate Counts between
Hand-Counted Votes and Machine-Counted Votes 2009 Audit.
Using the same data as the previous table, omitting small counts with small differences[6], this table also shows the number of candidate counts with various levels of percentages of differences between the optical scanners and the hand counts, considering ballots with questionable votes:
|
Nov 2010 |
||
| Range of % of Count Difference | % Of All Counts In Range | Number of Candidate Counts |
| 0 | 52.7% | 242 |
| > 0 and < 0.5 % | 20.5% | 94 |
| 0.5 % and < 1.0 % | 9.6% | 44 |
| 1.0 % and < 2.0 % | 7.2% | 33 |
| 2.0 % and < 5.0 % | 6.3% | 29 |
| 5.0 % and < 10.0 % | 1.3% | 6 |
| 10.0 % and greater | 2.4% | 11 |
| Total | 100.0% | 459 |
| Average Difference % | 0.59% | |
Table 7: Distribution by Difference of Significant Candidate Counts (30 or more votes) between Hand-Counted Votes and Machine-Counted Votes
By Ranges Of Percent 2010 Audit.
We note that if we were to trust these counts as an accurate representation of the optical scanner’s counting:
- For over 27% of candidate vote counts, the machine count difference is greater that 0.5% which is the maximum level for requiring a close vote recanvass. For statewide races the threshold is significantly lower since the maximum difference for an automatic recanvass is 2000 votes, which represents a much lower percentage than the usual 0.5%.
We do not believe that all of these counts are accurate. But we have no reason to believe that all the hand count differences can be attributed to human counting error. For public confidence it would seem important that all unsatisfactorily or unexplained discrepancies between machine counts and official, final audit results should be significantly lower than the maximum threshold for automatic recanvasses.
We continue to support investigations and recounting in public of all unsatisfactorily explained differences over an agreed upon threshold per count.
Looking at the data this way and comparing with 2009, we observe the same trend as in the previous charts:
|
Nov 2009 |
||
| Range of % of Count Difference | % Of All Counts In Range | Number of Candidate Counts |
| 0 | 55.3% | 380 |
| > 0 and < 0.5 % | 19.5% | 134 |
| 0.5 % and < 1.0 % | 9.3% | 64 |
| 1.0 % and < 2.0 % | 11.4% | 78 |
| 2.0 % and < 5.0 % | 3.2% | 22 |
| 5.0 % and < 10.0 % | 1.2 % | 8 |
| 10.0 % and greater | 0.0 % | 0 |
| Total | 100.0% | 686 |
| Average Difference % | 0.37% | |
Table 8: Distribution by Difference of Significant Candidate Counts (30 or more votes) between Hand-Counted Votes and Machine-Counted Votes
By Ranges Of Percent 2009 Audit.
C. “Questionable” Votes and “Undisputed” Ballots
Observations and comments from election officials indicate confusion about classifying “undisputed ballots” and about counting “questionable votes.”[7] An undisputed ballot is a ballot with no apparent problem or questionable votes on it. A questionable vote is a mark on a ballot that may not have been read properly by the optical scanner. Audits exhibited a variety of interpretations of what constitutes “undisputed” and “ballots with questionable votes.” Audit statistics confirm these observations.
The following table has some examples of candidate counts with the largest percentages of questionable votes. Note that, in general, the optical scanners seem to have counted accurately many of the votes classified by officials as questionable.
|
Nov 2010 |
||||
| Col C Machine Totals (tape) | Col D Undisputed Vote Totals | Col E Questionable Vote Totals | Col F Overall Hand Count Totals
(D+E) |
Percent Questionable |
| 776 | 569 | 37 | 606 | 4.8% |
| 318 | 303 | 14 | 317 | 4.4% |
| 137 | 131 | 6 | 137 | 4.4% |
| 696 | 664 | 29 | 693 | 4.2% |
| 338 | 330 | 11 | 341 | 3.3% |
| 927 | 899 | 30 | 929 | 3.2% |
| 316 | 308 | 10 | 318 | 3.2% |
| 900 | 872 | 26 | 898 | 2.9% |
| 819 | 799 | 23 | 822 | 2.8% |
Table 9. Examples of Candidate Counts with the Largest
Percentage of Questionable Votes 2010 Audit
Compared with 2009 this area shows improvement in that significantly fewer votes are classified as questionable, since observations show that officials often classify too many votes as questionable and the results of counting show that most votes classified as questionable are indeed counted by the scanners. We also note that, on average, audits reported 0.46% of votes as questionable votes in 2010 vs. 2% in 2009.
|
Nov 2009 |
||||
| Col C Machine Totals (tape) | Col D Undisputed Vote Totals | Col E Questionable Vote Totals | Col F Overall Hand Count Totals
(D+E) |
Percent Questionable |
| 68 | 58 | 9 | 67 | 13.2% |
| 335 | 291 | 42 | 333 | 12.5% |
| 975 | 857 | 118 | 975 | 12.1% |
| 235 | 218 | 17 | 235 | 7.2% |
| 629 | 589 | 42 | 631 | 6.7% |
| 196 | 182 | 13 | 195 | 6.6% |
| 647 | 605 | 41 | 646 | 6.3% |
| 170 | 160 | 10 | 170 | 5.9% |
| 1621 | 1557 | 70 | 1627 | 4.3% |
Table 10. Examples of Candidate Counts with the Largest
Percentage of Questionable Votes 2009 Audit (one example per town)
[1] The law and audit procedures often use the term “Tabulator” to refer to election machines. We use the terms “Scanner” or “Optical Scanner” to make the report clearer.
[2] The law and audit procedures often use the term “Tabulator” to refer to election machines. We use the terms “Scanner” or “Optical Scanner” to make the report clearer.
[3] This is the most favorable interpretation of the audit reports, giving every benefit of the doubt to the accuracy of machine counts and the accuracy of hand counts. When Total Hand Count Totals is less than or equal to the Machine Totals, then the Questionable Vote Totals are included. When Undisputed Totals is greater than or equal to the Machine Totals then all Questionable Vote Totals are excluded. In the remaining cases enough Questionable Vote Totals are included to make the difference zero.
[4] This table and the following table provide data similar to that provided by the University of Connecticut in analyzing the November 2008 post-election audit, available at: http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/wp-content/uploads/2008-Nov-Hand-V10.pdf
[5] The original 2009 report has this as >10, it is correctly >=10
[6] The table omits candidate counts with tape counts less than 30 votes that have differences less than 3 votes.
[7] Part of the confusion comes from as the terms “Undisputed Ballots” and “Questionable Votes.” One term refers to ballots, the other to votes, where the process must focus at different times between classifying ballots and classifying votes. Also the terms can add to the confusion between votes which might have been read two different ways by the scanner and votes that should have been read one way by the scanner, yet that reading would not accurately reflect the voter’s intent.
