doing things differently: real world what if you could design your own voting system exactly the way...

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

Doing things differently: Real WorldWhat if you could design your own voting system exactly the way your community prefers?

NACRC Annual Conference – Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaJuly 14, 2012

DEAN C. LOGANLos Angeles CountyRegistrar-Recorder/County Clerk12400 Imperial HighwayNorwalk, CA 90650


2

Los Angeles CountyLargest county population in the United States

• 9.8 million4,058 square miles88 citiesRecognized for its cultural and ethnic diversity

• 11 supported languages in addition to English

http://www.gerryriskin.com/patchen.diversity.jpeg


3

Los Angeles County Electorate

Over 500 political subdivisions4.4 million registered voters4,883 precincts4,394 polling locations3,368,057 ballots cast (2008 Presidential)

• 2,557,835 @ polls (76%)• 810,222 VBM & Early Voting (24%)


www.lavote.net


4


www.lavote.net

Ten Years of Change

Initial focus on technology and systems Fraud versus accessibility A new federal role and agency A new profession Close contests: from exception to the rule Influx and evaporation of resources The politicization of the process

5


www.lavote.net

Current Trends & Initiatives

Voter registration modernization Performance indexing and benchmarks Audits and accountability Quality assurance; variance measurement Voting systems standards Proactive and strategic communications Voter empowerment Voter identification Voter suppression

6


www.lavote.net

What’s Next?

Changing demographics Shrunken voting systems market Unstable regulatory environment Increased scrutiny Future voting methods Lessons from abroad Local, regional, national dynamics

Time for a conversation…

7


8


Voting Systems Assessment Project (VSAP)

Vision: to implement a voting system through a transparent process that takes into account the needs and expectations of current and future Los Angeles County voters.

www.lavote.net


9


VSAP Goals

Modernize the County’s voting systems to ensure the future integrity of elections

Facilitate a broader range of opportunities and options for voters

Phase in a new voting system through an informed and open process that elicits public trust

www.lavote.net


10


VSAP Goals

Implement a voting system owned and operated by Los Angeles County

Model a process that can be replicated and advanced in other jurisdictions for acquiring voting systems

Increase efficiency, usability and accountability

www.lavote.net


11


Voting System Principles*

www.lavote.net

Developed by VSAP Advisory CommitteeServe to guide the acquisition and

development of a new voting systemReflect the needs and preferences expressed

by voters

Transparency–Scalability–Flexibility–Public Trust Integrity–Ease of Use–Portability–Cost Effective

* Ref.: “Toward a Voter-oriented Voting System” brochure


12


Citizen Participation and Transparency

Incorporated throughout the process

Data Collection: surveys, focus groups, etc.

Live streaming project activities and events

To provide input and guidance for the establishment of principles and general requirements for a system through implementation of new system

Voting Systems Assessment Advisory Committee

www.lavote.net


13


VSAP Approach & Challenges

www.lavote.net

Data collection and engagementDesign ideation

• Open Innovation Challenge• Voter experience brainstorming workshops

Identify and adopt a design modelFeasibility analysis and prototypingDevelopment and acquisition


14


VSAP Approach & Challenges

www.lavote.net

Testing and implementationDeployment

Parallel Processes:Identify and evaluate funding sourcesAdvocate for legislative and policy remedies


www.lavote.net


2009-2010

o Symposiumo VSAP Phase I

2011

o VSAP Phase IIo Draft Procurement Model

2012

o Ideation and Designo Model Adoption, Prototyping and Feasibilityo Contract Agreement, Board Approval Process and Regulatory Revision

2013- 2014

o Development and Certification of New Systemo Prepare for Implementation of New System

2015

o Delivery of New Systemo Pilot Implementation for November UDEL Election

VSAP Time Line

15


BackgroundKey Considerations

Where have we been and what does that tell us?


www.lavote.net


1960’s- IBM Mainframe Technology

1990’s- MTS on DOS Computers

2000- Touchscreen Early Voting

2003- InkaVote

2006- InkaVote Plus

Evolution of Current Voting System

17


www.lavote.net


1960’s IBM mainframe technology

18


www.lavote.net


1990’s: Microcomputer Tally System on DOS Personal Computers

19


www.lavote.net


2000:Touchscreen

EarlyVoting

20


www.lavote.net


2003:InkaVote Optical

Scan Voting System

21


www.lavote.net


2006: InkaVote Plus PBR and ABB

22


www.lavote.net


Value in consistency Of voting experience Of election administration processes

Expansion of voting services Vote By Mail Early Voting Centers Voters With Disabilities Military and Overseas Voters

Complexity of integrated systems

Principles Learned from History

23


www.lavote.net


Complexity of Integrated Systems

24


www.lavote.net


Must be able to evolve with changing statutory and regulatory requirements

Growing requirements for usabilityHeightened public scrutiny

More transparency and security Must be auditable

Successful change requires thought and collaboration

Principles Learned from History

25


www.lavote.net

Current system is rigid and fragileDwindling technical supportDoes not meet evolving requirements

Legal and regulatory Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Cannot serve forever At the end of useful life Great opportunities in modern technology Need a system that anticipates the next four decades

Need for New Voting System

26


www.lavote.net


1. Ballot Format2. Tally Location & Method3. Logistics, Handling, and Security

Critical Implementation Factors

27


www.lavote.net


Small Format Ballot CardLarge Format Full Face Ballot SheetElectronic Ballots

1. Ballot Format

28


www.lavote.net


Small Format Ballot Card

29


www.lavote.net


Large Format Full-Face Ballot

30


www.lavote.net


Electronic Ballots

31


www.lavote.net


Emerging Hybrid Concept Ballot presented and marked using electronic device Voted ballot printed in polling place for tally and audit

Offers best of electronic and paper ballotsLimited application to date

Oriented toward voters with special needsKey technical/operational challenges

• Hardware dependent (40,000+ devices)• Printer technology (paper size and ink requirements)• Form factor and power requirements

Ballot Marking Device

32


www.lavote.net


Central Tally Fewer tally machines Better control over tally operations Supports both poll and VBM ballot tabulation

Precinct Tally Time-efficient tally Electronic upload restriction drawbacks Training, preparation, control over 4,500 tally centers VBM voting requires a separate central tally Synergy with HAVA compliance requirements

2. Tally Location

33


www.lavote.net


Hand-Count Paper ballots are tallied by poll workers, volunteers and

election staffOptical Scan

Paper ballots are scanned through a machine that reads the markings on the ballot to tally

Electronic Votes are tallied electronically after voters mark selection

on a device such as a touchscreen or keyboard

Tally Method

34


www.lavote.net


Voting Materials Delivery ModelEquipment Handling FeaturesSecurity and Chain of Custody

3. Logistics, Handling & Security

35


www.lavote.net


Size and Portability

36


www.lavote.net


Dimension and Weight Light and compact

Portage Amenities Hand grips, extending handles, straps, wheels Stability during transport, durability

Storage and Maintenance Efficient stacking In situ maintenance and election configuration

Connectivity Power requirements at polling place Requirements for system programming

Equipment Handling Features

37


www.lavote.net


Number of units per polling place Increases complexity of custody control

Physical security vulnerabilities More serialized security seals and locks

Timelines and span of control Deadlines, time needed for distribution Sleepover issue

Security and Chain of Custody

38


www.lavote.net


Regulatory environment Changing, not transparent

Market Current products dated, not adequate Innovation stalled

Development and Implementation TimelineFuture Needs and Trends

Additional Considerations

39


Phase I Research Findings

How to approach a “Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal”


www.lavote.net


Identify stakeholder voting system needs

Establish baseline data (qualitative/quantitative) of voter attitudes

Collect data from diverse stakeholders and users

Ensure integrity of the data by partnering with academic institution

Phase 1 Objectives

41


Data Collection Methodology:

• Voter Surveys• Focus Groups• Election Worker Surveys• Internal Roundtable Discussion Groups• Key Stakeholder Discussion Groups

42


www.lavote.net


Countywide Voter Survey

Voter Focus Group Pollworker Survey Local Election Officials

Discussion

RR/CC Internal Discussion

Mar 16th- 28th Apr 5th- May 3rd Apr 29th- June 8th May 7th- 11th Mar 31st- Apr 2nd

1151 voters 113 voters 1,103 pollworkers 26 City Clerks 64 RR/CC staff members

online surveyphone survey

12 focus groups online survey 3 discussion groups

7 discussion groups

Research Activities

43


Initial Findings:Voters, in general and in Los Angeles County, have a significant level of confidence in the electoral process and voting systems

FIGURE 1:

VOTER CONFIDENCE IN CURRENT VOTING SYSTEM

44


Initial Findings:Voters lack knowledge or information about voting systems and the electoral process

FIGURE 2:

VOTER RESPONSES TO VOTING SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

45


Initial Findings:Accuracy, security, reliability and ease of use are the values that voters prioritize in a voting system

SURVEY DATA: VOTING SYSTEM VALUES

46


Initial Findings:SURVEY DATA: VOTING SYSTEM VALUES BY AGE GROUP

47


www.lavote.net


Voters have a significant level of trust in the County’s electoral process and voting systems

Voters feel like they lack knowledge or information about the processElections staff and local election officials are concerned about the ability

of the current InkaVote Plus to meet the growing needs of the County.Accuracy, security, reliability, and ease of use are values that voters

prioritize in a voting system.In general, stakeholders put more trust in a voting system

acquisition/development model that demonstrates has partnership component and that will give the RR/CC ownership of the system.

Executive Summary

48


Phase II Ideation & Design

Unconstrained: creative ideas, approaches and options


www.lavote.net

Five stagesInspirationConceptingApplauseRefinementEvaluation

Stage-GatingOpenIDEO.com Challenge Website

Open Innovation Challenge

50


51www.lavote.net

Accessible Voting Technology Initiative, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

OpenIDEO

U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC)Competitive 3-year grant from the EAC focused on increasing the accessibility of election technology

Partners

Funding


52www.lavote.net

Open Innovation Challenge Winners


53www.lavote.net

436 Initial inspirations – initial ideas for solutions 154 Concepts – Crowdsourced ideas from inspiration phase 20 Concepts evaluated for merit and promise 11 Open Innovation winners selected (3% of initial inspirations) 91,265 unique visits to

Open Innovation Challenges – Statistics*

* Ref.: VSAP Open Design Search Report

http://vimeo.com/13707896


54www.lavote.net

Workshops designed to engage stakeholders and gather ideas and concepts

Targeted different stakeholders and focused on different elements of a voting system

Voting System Design Workshops

March 2012• ITIF Workshops• Election Verification Network Conference: “A Tally System to Ensure Voter Trust: Collaborating to Develop Guiding

Principles”

April 2012• RR/CC Staff Design Workshops


55


VSAP Recurring Themes

www.lavote.net

Voter interface: user-friendly, modern interface with integrated accessibility features and options for attaching assistive technology tools

Ballot design: small paper ballots for audit, ease of handling and storage

Technology standardization: open source development, Election Mark-up Language (EML) for reporting and cloud technology for storage

Providing options: varied options for accessing and marking ballots, independent and secure options for ballot submission and tabulation


56www.lavote.net

Classification of Open Design Search Results


Next StepsPrototyping & Feasibility

How does this all begin to take shape?


58www.lavote.net

The prototyping stage requires securing funds to: Engage a consultant to synthesize ideas Develop, build and test a prototype system

Potential funding sources: Productivity Investment Fund Grant (PIF) Information Technology Innovation Foundation

(ITIF) grant

Prototyping & Feasibility


Next StepsRegulatory Migration

Recognizing the need for parallel processes


www.lavote.net


Regulatory environment more complex• Complex conditions for use• Dual state/federal approval requirement• Increased timeframes/costs for approval

Shift from assistance to enforcement roleRules/process remain undefined, unclearProcess is SOS/EAC-driven, not statute-drivenRisks for election jurisdictions

• Impacts on established operations and costs• Threat to viability of newly acquired voting systems

Voting System Certification & Approval

60


Considerations:What will the electorate of the future look like?What will the next generation of voters expect?

Considerations:Anticipating the unknownReasonable and practical expectations

An eye toward the future

A sustainable solution

61


www.lavote.net

@ lacountyrrcc

@ Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk

www.youtube.com/user/lacountyrrcc

Contact Information

[email protected](562) 462-1716

62

http://www.youtube.com/user/lacountyrrcc

doing things differently: real world what if you could design your own voting system exactly the way...

Documents

los angeles county electorate

los angeles county model

new voting system

english slide

vbm early voting

systems fraud

open process

registered voters