Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes?

l2718 writes "Two economists have just posted a paper online, showing a small correlation between counties' use of paperless electronic voting systems and voting results in the recent presidential election (after controlling for other factors). They found no evidence for systematic fraud by testing several potential indicators. Rather, the voting method seems to affect the relative turnout of different voter demographies. Thanks to Election Law Blog for the pointer."

Comments

Re:It hardly matters very much

[Zordak]

Poor, bitter liberals. Still can't get over a 5 year-old loss. Now let's move out of the Left Wing and into something more like reality:

Instead, he appealed the the supreme court and forced the end to a recount mandated by florida state law.

What really happened was that Florida had already had its mandatory recount. Gore, like a good politician, was pushing for a recount in select counties where he expected a net gain. He couldn't get that, so he figured at least a state-wide recount gave him a shot. Since Florida law required the election controversy to be settled by 12 December, and because he knew that didn't leave enough time for a truly fair recount, Gore wanted a quick and dirty recount without standards, because he knew that the counties that liked him would apply a standard favorable to him (I shouldn't have to mention that Bush, who had won the first couple of recounts, just wanted to leave well-enough alone). The Supreme Court found on a 7-2 vote that the haphazard recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Whether a vote was re-counted would be dependent on where it was re-counted. The court also found on a 5-4 vote that Florida had failed to propose any solution that would result in a constitutional recount prior to the Deadline of 12 December, so they ordered Florida to stop messing with the numbers and certify their results. The decision is certainly open to debate, but it was hardly the right-wing conspiracy liberals have made it out to be.

In the end, after all the votes were counted, it was found that he actually lost the florida electoral college.

Unless you live in the real world, where in the end, it was found that the result was easily within the margin of statistical error. Who won depended heavily on what standard was used to count a vote as valid, and ironically, both candidates had proposed standards that would have caused them to lose if followed. There absolutely was not a clear winner, especially if you account for dirty tricks played by both sides on election day that result in absolutely illegal and illegitimate votes. But we did learn some important lessons. First and most importantly, if you want to be sure your voice is heard, get off your butt, go and vote and do it right. It's a lot more effective than trying to sue your candidate into office after the fact. Second, the methods we use for registering, voting and counting are not perfect. But if you needed a scandal to tell you that, you have been sadly misled. Perhaps open electronic voting systems verified by the public will eliminate some of this error.

The fact that Bush lost the popular vote is just another reinforcing reason.

Unless you're one of those crazy people who actually think the Constitution is a good idea, in which case you know that the "popular vote" is a myth propogated by the media. There is no "popular vote" to lose, so pretending that the "popular vote" should warrant a charge of illegitimacy is just ignorant. Now, you may be one who is deluded into thinking that a "popular vote" would be a good idea, and you are certainly free to think that, but until you get the Constitution amended, it doesn't mean anything. Now think for a minute. Suppose we decided that Florida was too close to call, and we decided that state by a coin toss and Bush won. You theory is that his presidency would still be illegitimate because he "lost" the "popular vote." Would you then stand up for the legitimacy of a Gore presidency, despite the fact that it would be absolutely, unquestionably, without doubt unconstitutional? Are you really prepared to propose a system where we change the rules based on a feel-good whim? What if Kerry had won Ohio? I didn't hear the left wing crying loudly about the popular vote last November, when there was a non-trivial possibility that the tables could be turned. Would you change your mind under those circumstances? If so, you don't really believe in the "popular vote." You're just weeping because your guy didn't win.