Voting Machines Being Used Today

return to election map

Electronic Machines

Premier Election Solutions AccuVote-TS & AccuVote-TSX

The AccuVote-TS is the most commonly used direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine, which will be used on Nov. 4 by about 8% of voters. Its brother, the newer AccuVote-TSX, will be used by 1.2%. That popularity stems from an interactive touchscreen interface that walks voters through the election slate. Yet, wide use has also subjected AccuVote-TS/TSX systems to intense scrutiny. Researchers at Princeton University and University of California-Santa Barbara as well as officials in California, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland and Ohio have looked into AccuVote security.

Pros
A 2006 Cuyahoga County exit poll reported that more that 90% of voters said they liked using an AccuVote-TSX system and were confident their votes would be recorded correctly. More than 95% of older voters said they felt the system was easier to use than punch cards that they had used previously.

With a familiar "X" next to a selected candidate, the AccuVote interface feels a lot like a familiar paper ballot, except the AccuVote will let you know if you failed to vote in any contest, can recognize verbal votes from disabled voters, supports multiple languages, and confirms selections when a voter finishes a ballot. Vote totals are stored in multiple locations within the self-contained tabletop system and, with the newer AccuVote-TSX, on paper receipts in the form of a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

Cons
While no evidence exists that the AccuVote-TS and -TSX systems have actually been hacked during an election, that potential has been well documented. The Cuyahoga County report cites widespread problems ranging from equipment setup difficulties to inconsistent vote tallies between the memory and paper records of individual machines. More critically, computer experts from both Princeton and UC-Santa Barbara have shown in independent tests how the AccuVote-TS and -TSX systems might be hacked surprisingly quickly in several ways. Someone could bypass the chassis' physical security measures, altering vote tallies, embedding code viruses that could change votes, and even altering the paper audit trail to fool a voter into thinking votes were recorded accurately.

Election Systems & Software (ES&S) iVotronic

The iVotronic is a freestanding tabletop voting machine with an intuitive touchscreen interface that has been praised for its simplicity. It can also take voice commands. The iVotronic will be used by just over 5% of the voting population in the 2008 national election.

Yet in November 2006, Florida's Sarasota County reported about 18,000 undervotes in a contested congressional election using the iVotronic. Over the following year, the United States Government Accountability Office reported that "while prior tests and reviews provided some assurance that [other iVotronic] voting systems performed correctly, they were not enough to provide reasonable assurance that the voting systems in Sarasota County did not contribute to the undervote." It's unclear whether that statement is an acquittal or accusation, but the ambiguity contributes to wide skepticism of digital technology's unknown complexities. That, in turn, is leading election officials in many locations to rethink DREs.

Pros
Arkansas election officials reported after an initial rollout of about 2,500 iVotronic touchscreen voting systems in 68 counties that "voters loved the iVotronics." And Arkansans are not alone in enjoying the system. The iVotronic exemplifies the advantage of a graphic interface ballot presentation: It is easy to read, and highlights each choice after a voter puts an "X" next to it, making it harder to cast an erroneous vote. It also prompts voters if they fail to vote in any contest. And to help voters actually cast their votes, the iVotronics features a physical "VOTE" button that flashes red while the voter reviews a list of selections. Pressing the button seals the deal.

Cons
In December 2007, following research conducted by Pennsylvania State University, University of Pennsylvania, and WebWise Security Inc. for the state of Ohio, the Ohio Secretary of State recommended the elimination of DRE voting machines, including both iVotronic and AccuVote-TS and -TSX systems.

More specifically, the report describes the security failings of the ES&S system as "severe and pervasive" with "exploitable weaknesses . . . that can be mounted by almost any participant in an election." So far, such exploitations remain theoretical, but other less-overt irregularities have been reported — including in North Carolina (where a firmware problem failed to record 436 ballots), Texas (dozens of voter complaints that the system was recording the wrong vote), Dade County, Florida (134 no-vote-recorded ballots in a single-race election), and Arkansas (57 votes attributed to the wrong contest) — in addition to Sarasota County.

Sequoia Voting Systems AVC Advantage & AVC Edge

The freestanding AVC Advantage was first developed 20 years ago and has been in continuous use in elections ever since, although it was superseded nine years ago by the smaller tabletop AVC Edge. Today, the machines are under the banner of Sequoia, the third-largest election-system supplier. The two AVC models make up about 5.4% of the systems deployed this November.

The most visible difference between the Advantage and Edge is the chassis design. The Edge fits in a rolling hard-shell case for easier transport. It also sports several technology improvements, including: redundant flash memory rather than battery-powered RAM, an ATM-style smart card to activate the system rather than a paper ticket that too often requires hands-on assistance from poll workers, and a touchscreen interface rather than navigation arrow keys.

Pros
Both the Advantage and Edge offer voters immediate feedback on an LCD screen as they make selections, although the newer Edge's touchscreen interface offers a more intuitive experience. Sequoia was a leader in implementing the VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) and both systems can be equipped with a printer.

Cons
There are fewer published reports of election errors using the Advantage and Edge than there are with the other popular DRE systems, but they exist. For example, in 2004 Edge systems in New Mexico collectively recorded more than 2,000 phantom votes, or more votes cast than there were registered voters. There are also reported cases in Washington in 2004, New Mexico in 2004, and Florida in 2006 when systems changed votes from one candidate to another. Memory and other system failures caused lost votes in Florida in 2006, Louisiana, New Mexico and New Jersey in 2004, and California in 2003.


return to election map

---

Optical-Scan Machines

Premier Election Solutions AccuVote

If any one group of voting machines is at ground zero for election controversy, it is those in the Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) AccuVote line. That's unfortunate, because more voters will cast their ballot using this type of machine than any other.

Pros
Unlike electronic touch-screen models, the optical-scan AccuVote-OS and ES-2000 by their very nature provide a paper trail for later audits. The OS also warns the voter if they've marked too many candidates in a category, and confirms a voter's intention when no choices are made.

Cons
A recent study by the University of Connecticut computer science department found that the AccuVote's software and memory were far too easily hacked. This was the machine behind the famous Volusia County, Florida, error in 2000, when Gore lost 16,000 votes, and a precinct with 412 registered voters rang up 2,813 votes for Bush. And unlike some systems, the AccuVote-OS doesn't let you check how the machine recorded marks.

Election Systems & Software (ES&S) Model 100

This optical-scan system will be used by over 9% of voters on November 4th, although various malfunctions have plagued the machine since its introduction.

Pros
The machine will confirm the voter's intention if they fail to mark a candidate for a contest on the ballot and can be set up to return ballots for corrections if too many candidates are marked. The paper ballots create a paper trail that can be used for recounts. Most voters find optical-scan ballots easy to use, and with the Model 100 the voter gets a paper receipt that lets them check their vote.

Cons
The system will allow you to vote for more than one candidate for a single seat, which could result in a rejected ballot. The optical scanner can be sensitive to the type of ballot marker used, and many precincts recommend a No. 2 pencil, as black ball-point ink can be too reflective.

Mysterious unexplained problems have cropped up since the machine was introduced 10 years ago. In 1998 in Hawaii there were widespread Model 100 failures resulting in ES&S having to pay over half a million dollars to settle contract disputes and pay for recounts. During the same election in Texas, software bugs in the tabulating system caused 41, 415 voted to go uncounted. In Pottawattamie County Iowa's June 2006 election, flawed ES&S programming caused the system to deliver incorrect results in all nine races.

Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Sequoia Voting Systems Optech

This older optical-scan system was first manufactured by a company called Business Records, before they were sold to ES&S. Due to SEC antitrust action, the Optech family of machines is now made by two different companies, ES&S and Sequoia.

Pros
The voter marks their choice by completing a broken arrow. The majority of users find this method is easy to understand and intuitive. Most Optech systems will not allow you to mark more than one candidate for each race, and the machines can be set to allow voters to leave a position blank. Faulty ballots are rejected, and the reason is displayed either on a screen, or printed on paper. Paper ballots create a permanent paper trail that can be used for a recount.

Cons
Most Optech systems do allow for the voter to check selections on a screen or paper receipt before the ballot is submitted. Security concerns center around the data cards that record the vote totals, and the relative ease with which the machines can be opened without breaking security seals.

While the Optech systems have not been at the center of any major voting debacles, there have been numerous glitches over the years. For instance, in the 2004 Presidential election, some Optech machines in Oklahoma started counting votes, except they were counting backwards for Kerry. During a recent Washington DC council race, Optech machines double counted write-in votes.


return to election map

---

Lever Machines

AVM Printomatic

The Printomatic currently serves 3.88% of the total number of voters in the United States -- a big step if you consider that in the mid-1900s lever voting machines were in every metropolitan hub. The Printomatic is the direct descendant of the earliest lever voting machine produced, the Myers Automatic Booth. You only find the machines in New York. The Printomatic distinguishes itself by having a noncarbon paper spool fitted inside. At both the beginning and the end of a day of voting, attendants can print what the counters inside the machine registered, which helps keep readings accurate and helps catch errors (for example, if a counter inside the machine isn't set to zero before voting starts, it could artificially inflate a tally).

Pros
Working a Printomatic is easy: pull the lever to unlock the voting switches, select how you want to vote, and then pull the lever again to lock in your choices. The lever also opens and closes a privacy curtain so you don't have to worry about anyone spying. The self-contained nature of the booth and the analog technology means you generally don't have to worry about your vote getting messed with. There's also the physical feedback of manually casting your vote. Pulling the lever can be an assuring thing for voters.

Cons
When Connecticut made a push to replace its lever-voting machines as a part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, several studies were released matching up the AVM Printomatic with more modern DREs.

"Mechanical Lever Voting Machines and The Help America Vote Act of 2002," published in 2003 by the Connecticut General Assembly, pegged the machines as being an obstacle to the disabled. The machines don't feature any audio alternatives for blind people who can't read Braille, and the levers and switches challenge voters who don't have full control of both of their arms.

Another big problem with Printomatics is that no one makes parts for them anymore with any regularity. Broken-down machines are cannibalized, which means that functions of working machines are determined by the parts that can be scrounged.

IES Shoup Manual System

The IES Shoup Manual System is the less popular of the two lever machines, recording 1.83% of all votes cast — a number that's dwindled this century because of the push for modernized methods of voting. During its heyday, Shoup made some of the most advanced lever machines, with significant periodic improvements introduced between 1925 and 1975. Now, production has ceased. Booths still in use have been the same since the 1980s, and are unlikely to change. The Shoup really only differs from the Printomatic in one small way: the party labels, listed in columns and rows on both machines, are reversed.

Pros
Just like the AVM Printomatic, working a Shoup is simple.Pull the lever to unlock the voting switches, make selections, and then pull the lever again to lock in your choices — though the layout of rows and columns on the Shoup Manual System is reversed from the Printomatic. The Shoup Manual System is collapsible, too,making it more transportable than the Printomatic.

Cons
Unlike the AVM Printomatic, the Shoup can't make physical voting records other than counts on its meter. It lacks the Printomatic's failsafe paper spool. Instead, attendants working a Shoup must diligently reset the counters to zero before a vote, and recording the right tallies after.

The number 99 is famously not what you want to see at the end of the day when it comes to lever voting machines. It means the pins advancing the odometers inside the machine have malfunctioned or broken off, and the machine's counter is jammed.

Like all voting machines, the Shoup is heavy, unwieldy and a lot larger than modern voting machines. Then there's the fact that the Shoup's layout uses printed labels requiring the use of specialized printers every voting cycle. It takes more force to advance the odometer from the tens to the hundredths as the weight of the first two odometer wheels must be moved, so this is where the danger of a pin snapping is greatest.


return to election map

---

Punch-Card Machine

Votomatic 228 vote recorder

This is the endangered species of the American voting booth, killed off in massive numbers after the infamous Palm Beach, Florida, butterfly ballot in the 2000 election. Originally developed in 1965 by IBM, the technology that brought you the hanging chad had been largely phased out by 2006 . Only eight jurisdictions in Idaho are using the Votomatic in 2008. There are 228 potential vote options per punch card, and the process is simple. Stick your punch-card ballot into the Votomatic and poke a metal stylus through the card where indicated.

Pros
This technology is durable and easily maintained. Older voters in particular will be familiar with the method. And there's no denying the paper trail. Punch cards can be read on site or at a centralized location, depending whether speed of results or tighter control over the cards is a priority.

Tampering with the cards themselves is tough. There have been rumors of monkeying with the card-printing process — printing them in a manner to make it difficult to punch through the card at certain spots, or pre-poking a stack of cards, but these seem to be urban legends.

Cons
There's a reason why "hanging chads" became a punchline. Lack of simple maintenance, which amounts to keeping the machine's chamber clear of punched-out chads, is the Votomatic's Achilles' heel. While the card-reader software could technically be hacked like any software, it's the Votomatic's "capacity" that may finally deep-six it: 228 positions may not be enough to cover all "third-party" choices, resolutions votes and so on.


return to election map