On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Texas Democratic Party v Andrade, 08-540. The party had complained that the state should not be using e-Slate vote-counting equipment, because of the way that equipment handles voters who use the straight-ticket device.
If a voter using e-Slate machines uses the straight-ticket device, and that same voter also casts a vote in a particular race for the nominee of the same party, the machine then erases the vote cast by that voter in the one race. Apparently many voters use the straight-ticket device. But, just for emphasis, they may also “re-vote” for a particular candidate they especially want to win. That has the effect of cancelling out the voter’s vote in the one race in which he or she was especially eager to vote.
It would seem rational that Texas Democrats, having lost this lawsuit, would support the pending bill in the legislature to eliminate the straight-ticket device.
A quick correction: The e-slate machines aren’t quite that bad. When a voter selects “straight party” and then also selects candidate X of the same party, it only cancels out the vote for candidate X. (It toggles that vote off.) The rest of the straight party votes are unaffected.
Any fine voter instructions on how to use the e-voting system ???
Thank you, Art, for the correction. I amended the post.
There is no reason to assume that Texas Democrats would act rationally. The basic appeal of the Democratic party is that their constituency are victims that need the protection of the government. The lawsuit served to publicize the “fact” that computers were cheating voters or did not reliably record their vote. It also provided income for Democrat-inclined lawyers, and since it is not a campaign-related expense, there would be no limits on contributions to fund it.
Democrats can now encourage voters to only select the straight ticket box and skip the rest of the ballot, telling voters that they risk having their vote not being counted. Regardless whether the e-Slate device records voter intent correctly, there are only bad things that can come from someone voting in individual races. This may result in voters considering the individual merits of the candidates, or the duties of the office they seek. And worse, they might cast a vote for a candidate of another party.
Democrat voters are more likely to vote straight ticket, while Republicans voters are more likely to vote for every Republican on the ballot. If there were no straight ticket device, this would probably be an advantage to Republicans. In addition, there is a possibility that straight ticket voters may be visible to poll watchers.
The fundamental problem is that the e-Slate devices are programmed to prevent overvotes and discourage unintended casual undervotes.
To prevent overvotes, when a voter makes a second choice, the first choice is deselected. So if a voter first selects Smith, and then selects Wesson, the Smith vote is not recorded.
But if you were to first vote for Smith, and then decided that was a mistake, and didn’t want to vote for Wesson either, you would need a way to erase your vote. On the e-Slate device you do this by re-selecting your original choice. It works exactly like a check box does in typical computer user interfaces. Click once it is checked. Click again and it is not checked.
The only alternatives would be to add an additional “erase” control to the device, or to have a None of These Candidates selections for every race. The former would require another physical button on the device, the other would require a change in State law (plus longer ballots).
To discourage unintended undervotes, a voter is forced to scroll through all races, and are then shown a summary of their votes, with any races that a voter has not made a choice indicated.
If a voter were using a paper ballot, and had marked the Democrat straight ticket box, there would be no indication when he got to the presidential race that barring any other marks, that he had voted to Obama, or in some down-ballot race without a Democrat candidate that he had not voted at all.
If a voted wanted to “emphasized” their vote for Obama they could simply mark an X. Or if they wanted to vote for Barr or McCain or Nader (via write-in) they could do that as well (in Texas, you can override a straight ticket vote for each individual race).
But on the e-Slate device it is expect that the implied vote for Obama be shown, as well as the summary showing any races that they had skipped.
So after a voter selects the Democrat party straight ticket, a vote for all Democrat candidates is indicated. If a voter then scrolls down to the presidential race and selects Barr, the vote is switched from Obama to Barr, just as if he had not voted straight ticket, but simply selected Obama and then made a correction to Barr.
But if the voter selects Obama to “emphasize” his vote, then his vote is erased. This is exactly what would happen if he had not voted straight ticket, but had then selected Obama once, and then selected Obama a second time.
If this weren’t the case, then there would be no way to indicate that you did not want to vote for a party’s candidate in a particular race; and the effect of selecting a candidate a 2nd time would be different based on whether you voted straight ticket or not.
Eliminate the straight ticket option, and the problem goes away. It is certainly not an unreasonable burden to require a voter to make an individual selection in each race on the ballot.