Problems and Solutions for Broken Election Processes

By: Larry P. English

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:19:45 -0600

To Concerned Citizens:

I am a professional in the area of information quality. I am very

concerned that the election processes apparently are still

severely broken even after Congress appropriated $3.86 Billion

for Election "upgrades" in 2002. The evidence is clear from

continued issues observed in the press and online discussions.

There are several things we understand in our field that are not

well understood at large or by those who have the ability to

"reform" the election processes. I would like to briefly speak to

some of these points because they are particularly relevant at

present.

Please let me share briefly some of my credentials to speak to

this matter. I have been called one of the top authorities in the

world in assessing and improving the reliability and accuracy of

information processes. My book, "Improving Data Warehouse and

Business Information Quality," was called "the Information Bible

for the Information Age" by Masaaki Imai, creator of the Kaizen

quality system, used by many world-class firms. It has been

translated into Japanese by the first information services

organization to win the Deming Prize for Quality. I was featured

on the cover of the American Society for Quality's "Quality

Progress" Jan 2000 issue, as "One of 21 Voices for the 21st

Century."

I conducted a major analysis of the 2000 Presidential Election,

"Information Quality Mandate for Election Reform," in "DM

Review," a four-part series beginning in Oct 2001. A PDF file of

the complete article is found at

http://www.infoimpact.com/newspdf/DMR_10.01IQLessonsFromElection2000-w-Links.pdf.

Problems with 2004 Electoral Information Processes:

Despite the considerable attention and concern on the part of

both the government and concerned citizens for the issue of the

reliability of electoral information processes since 2000, there

are still numerous, recurring problems that have been observed in

the 2004 election. A very small sample includes:

* Washington State has had multiple recount(s), including

belatedly discovered ballots

* 46,000 voters were discovered registered in both Florida and

New York

* 58,000 absentee ballots "disappeared" in Florida

* 38,400+ Election 2004 incident reports have been filed

according to Verifiedvoting.org

* Numerous irregularities and controversy in Ohio, including

write-in votes allegedly incorrectly defaulting to one

candidate when run through the voting machine

* Voter registration problems persist

* Provisional ballot problems, including rejection of two

thirds of Florida's provisional ballots

* Electronic voting machine malfunctions

* Electronic voting machine failures occurred this year in

Georgia, Maryland, California and other states, but the

companies that certify the machines refuse to discuss the

flaws.

Some Important, Relevant Principles:

Assuring the reliability of electronic technology is not a

mysterious art; it's an established field of practice in use by

many information professionals. As I examine these reports and

many others, it strikes me that it may be helpful to present a

few key principles that seem particularly relevant at present:

First, automating a process doesn't assure accuracy. Machines or

computer software cannot guarantee accuracy in themselves.

Assessing the accuracy of election processes requires human

observers, since only human observers comparing against a real

world entity (ballots, in this case) can play that role. Many

software applications implement "edit and validation" rules in a

way that causes errors. Furthermore, producing accurate data

requires processes and data collection devices that are clearly

defined and controlled, as well as clear guidance for the

information producers (the voters, in this case).

Second, while assuring the integrity of capture of the individual

ballots (and their count) is the central issue in any election,

assuring accurate vote capture and counts requires assessing the

reliability of the electronic voting devices and processes, not

just individual ballots. Inaccurate votes are produced by

defective processes. Not focusing on the process can lead to bias

in conclusions. For example, some of the apparent "errors" we're

hearing about may be caused by sampling error, such as an

apparent lack of random selection of districts that's been

reported for the 3% test recounts in Ohio.

Third, before use of electronic voting devices processing

election information in private, we had defined election

processes that could be audited (recounts). Apart from voter

anonymity, all steps of the process were subject to examination.

When electronic voting devices are used, they entail the need for

rigorous assessment of all components, including hardware,

software, backup and recovery, against various types of failure

(hardware, data storage, software, power outage, etc.) integrity

against tampering, chain of custody control, and ability to audit

the results for recount purposes.

My Recommendation:

My recommendation is that there should be a vigorous

investigation into the systemic and pervasive problems in the

integrity and reliability of the election processes, including

but not limited to voter registration, early voting, provisional

voting, election-day voting, vote counting, vote recount,

electronic voting, chain of custody, etc.

As an American citizen, I am very concerned about the persistent

problems.

As an expert in applying quality management principles to

information processes, I would be pleased to share my insights or

provide expert testimony to the problems, root causes, and to the

real reforms (process improvements) required to error-proof this

most- sacred privilege Americans have, to select our

representatives in government. Some requirements for real and

sustainable election reform include:

* Accessible, easy and open registration processes

* Voter-friendly ballot design (regardless of voting

technology)

* Well-defined voting processes that are error-proofed,

reliable and controlled and auditable

* Chain of custody controls to prevent tampering

* Training of election workers so they can error proof their

processes

* Training of voters (as to types of problems with the voting

devices & how to prevent errors and disqualified votes)

Thank you for allowing me to help improve one of the most

important, but one of the most broken processes in our democratic

society.

Sincerely,

Larry English, President

INFORMATION IMPACT International, Inc.

Larry.English@infoimpact.com

INFORMATION IMPACT International, Inc.

871 Nialta Ln., STE 100

Brentwood, TN 37027

Tel: 615-837-1211

Fax: 615-837-8804

Email:

Larry.English@infoimpact.com

Web site:

http://www.infoimpact.com

Improving Data Warehouse & Business Information Quality" can be

previewed on our web site.

***Plan to attend the 2005 Information Quality Conference,

September 19-23, 2005 in Houston, TX*****