Monthly Archives: October 2011

Audit of Election Results Cites Problem in Oconee County

Read the entire story here.

According to Buell, Oconee County failed to save about two-thirds of its audit files: voting data stored on small memory cards – or “flash cards” – that are supposed to be removed from voting machines and uploaded to a central computing system.

“Only about a third of the cast vote records show up in the files,” says Buell. “They’re just missing 2/3 of the vote data which makes it impossible to do a serious audit.”

Venango County Pennsylvania decides to vote with paper- not iVotronics

Venango County has turned over their iVotronics to two Pittsburgh College computer scientists for a forensic audit. There were “numerous reports of vote-flipping, candidates missing from screens, write-ins missing, and high undervote rates in their May 17 Primary”.
Read the rest of the story here.

View the SC Independent Audit Report with county by county detail

Here is the first complete independent county by county audit of South Carolina’s ES&S iVotronic voting system.

Audits spotlight 2010 vote problems – Charleston Post & Courier 10/3/2011

Here is the entire article by Robert Behre describing some of the problems with the November 2010 election audit.

Duncan Buell, a University of South Carolina computer science professor, helped spearhead the League’s audit.

“By my count, there were eight counties for which there were significant problems in terms of being able to get an independent audit to determine if the numbers were correct.”

He noted Williamsburg, Orangeburg and Lancaster counties had no electronic data available, while Oconee and Horry counties were unable to produce usable audit files. In Richland County, more than 1,000 votes in two different precincts didn’t get counted.

Colleton certified incorrect totals because of human error, and Charleston County was unable to account for 35,000 votes, or about 25 percent of the total, in the audit.

Taken together, Buell said, “we have a serious problem in having an election where we can go back and get results and be sure we have the right answers. I think what we have a system that’s not acceptable because there are too many errors happening.”

Buell noted that only 15 of 46 counties provided all five files requested. “That’s not a very good record,” he said. “For some of those counties, there were a few that produced only tiny fractions of the right data. I think we deserve better than that.”