overvotes

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

The scanners in BC and most places that I know of do in fact reject marks
made in more than one box or oval in a single race. It is called an
overvote.
HAVA requires that overvotes not be counted as a vote for both or more than
once choice in the same race. In BC with the new system ballots with
overvotes are rejected by the scanner and presented to a resolution board.
The resolution board examines the ballot and attempts to determine voter
intent. If voter intent cannot be determined, then any votes on that ballot
in that race are discounted, disregarded, and not counted.

With the old punch card system that BC used for 29 years an overvote in a
given race were discounted, disregarded, and not counted immediately. No
resolution board looked at why. The reason was that the card was punched and
there would be no way to tell voter intent. More than one punch was Boolean.
No gray area existed.

This determination of overvotes on color the dot ballots takes time, since
humans have to become involved. I wouldn't think it a good idea to base
whether or not something is a vote on how much of the box or oval has been
filled. The voter might stop filling in one box or oval and then correct
themselves; then not only fill in another box or oval, but circle it as well
to emphasize their intent. Since the scanner can't see circles of the
intended box or oval, or handwritten notes and arrows, the scanner software
might determine something a vote that is not.

Somewhat related to overvotes: I read an interesting instruction to voters
from advocates against fraud that said if you don't plan to vote for someone
or an issue in a particular race, then fill in all the boxes or ovals in
that race. The advocates said not to leave any blanks. No undervotes.
When unsure, fill in all the boxes or ovals rather than leave it open to
fraud.

If BC (or elsewhere) had voters filling in all the boxes or ovals, then that
ballot would be rejected. In such a case it is likely that the ballot would
go to a duplication committee and they would recreate the ballot without any
boxes or ovals filled-in in that particular race.

Overvotes cause rejections. Under votes do not.

Some Guy

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kok [mailto:kok@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:30 PM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'LPBC Board'
Cc: pshields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ryan Morgan'; 'KGNU news'
Subject: RE: Improving the LAT (Re: Bad ballot markings)

I think the ballot scanners should reject ballots that are ambiguously
marked, just as they reject ballots that have votes for more than one
candidate when only a single candidate may be voted for.

The scanners presently accept the tiniest mark inside an oval as a vote.
Such marks could come from a voter accidentally touching the paper with
the pen where not intended, or could also be a defect in the printed
ballot, or a bit of dirt, hair or clothing fibers that stuck to the
ballot.  If such an unintended mark appeared in an oval for a contest in
which the voter made no selection, then the scanner would misinterpret
the stray mark as a valid vote, contrary to the voters' intention.

If the scanner rejected ballots which have ovals that are detectably
marked but less than, say 30 or 50% filled, or that have ovals with
substantial marks outside the oval but less than 30% filled inside, then
voters would have a chance to touch up their ballots or spoil their
ballots and start over with a new one.  The result would be that any
ballots accepted by the scanners would be unambiguous as to whether any
give oval is marked or not.  In a recount situation, the scanners would
not reject ambiguous ballots, but just count ovals that are less than
15% filled as not marked, and ovals that are 15% or more filled as
marked.  Since no ballots should have ovals that are anywhere near 15%
marked, all scanners should read all ballots the same way.

Cheers,
- Jan