Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Voting Technologies, Recount Methods and Votes in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 10958))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1731 Accesses

Abstract

We present data from the 2016 presidential election recounts done in Wisconsin and Michigan and information about the voting technologies that were used there to explain why it is challenging to show that the voting technologies treated candidates Trump and Clinton symmetrically. Lack of clarity about which type of technology was used to record vote counts, a mix of mostly small but sparse large counted differences between original and recounted vote totals, features that relate to voters, technologies and recount methods, and selectivity concerns are among the obstacles.

Prepared for presentation at the 3rd Workshop on Advances in Secure Electronic Voting at Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2018. Thanks to Preston Due, Joseph Hansel and Barry Snyder for assistance. Thanks to Philip Stark for suggestions and to Alex Halderman and Dan Wallach for discussions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Wisconsin margin computed using recounted vote values in [29].

  2. 2.

    Michigan margin computed using official values in [16].

  3. 3.

    See California’s Top-to-Bottom review [5] and Ohio’s Project EVEREST [20].

  4. 4.

    All recounting in Michigan was manual.

  5. 5.

    But see the discussion of DRE usage on page 5.

  6. 6.

    In Table 1 the biggest increase (from CITY OF MILWAUKEE Ward 34) is not explained but the recounted vote count in [29] matches the count reported in minutes [22, 17–18], the second biggest (from CITY OF MARINETTE Wards 1,3,5) is explained by “nonstandard pens or ballots” and “voting machine/tabulator error,” and the third biggest (from CITY OF MARINETTE Wards 2,4,6) is explained by “nonstandard pens or ballots,” “ballots found during recount” and “ballots rejected during recount.” In Table 2 the biggest increase (from CITY OF MARINETTE Wards 1,3,5) is explained by “nonstandard pens or ballots” and“voting machine/tabulator error,” and the second biggest (from CITY OF MARINETTE Wards 2,4,6) is explained by “nonstandard pens or ballots,” “ballots found during recount” and “ballots rejected during recount.” The Marinette wards used Eagle opscan machines (vendor Command Central), and minutes mention problems with “improper pens,” “Problems with the voting machine rejecting ballots on election night” and “Machine parts were obtained [...] and installed per instructions from Command Central, voting equipment vendor” [19, 43–44].

  7. 7.

    Recount methods distribution: hand, 2,126; machine, 1.066; mixed, 286; other, 22.

  8. 8.

    Category “Other” in Fig. 2 contains the technologies Populex 2.3, Vote-Pad and “Edge; Automark.” “None” indicates that votes are tabulated by hand or technology is not reported.

  9. 9.

    Problems that required “programmer” or vendor Command Central help to resolve or that may suggest there was some kind of software error are reported for the Edge machine in several county minute files. In at least seven wards a programmer or Command Central had to help to retrieve ballots (TOWN OF ARLAND Ward 1 and TOWN OF CUMBERLAND Ward 1 [1, 11–12]; TOWN OF GILMANTON Ward 1 [8, 14]; TOWN OF RUSK Ward 1 and VILLAGE OF WEBSTER Wards 1–2 [4, 15, 27]; TOWN OF HARRISON Ward 1 [11, 22]; TOWN OF OCONTO FALLS Ward 1–2 [23, 46]). in at least nine wards the machine count was wrong (TOWN OF RED CEDAR Ward 1–3, TOWN OF WILSON Ward 1 and CITY OF MENOMONIE Wards 5,7 [9, 13, 23, 34]; TOWN OF BEETOWN Ward 1, TOWN OF BLOOMINGTON Ward 1, TOWN OF BOSCOBEL Wards 1–2 [11, 10, 12–13]; TOWN OF CHASE Wards 1–5 [23, 22]; TOWN OF HELVETIA Wards 1–2 [26, 8]; TOWN OF WAUTOMA Ward 1–3 [27, 20]). In at least four wards ballots did not print out or needed to be reprinted (TOWN OF STANFOLD Ward 1 [1, 22]; TOWN OF COLBURN Ward 1 and TOWN OF GOETZ Wards 1–2 [7, 13, 20]; CITY OF BERLIN Ward 1–6 [12, 2]). Overall the minutes report 41 wards with explicitly described problems with their Edge machines, and 1270 wards with Edge machines but nothing reported regarding them. Problem reports are not always associated with nonzero changes in votes counts.

  10. 10.

    In [28] only 21 wards report a positive number of DRE votes and zero votes cast using other modes, which are Paper Ballots, Optical Scan Ballots, and Auto-Mark.

  11. 11.

    The ratio is the number of registered voters from [34], over the number of registered voters from [28].

  12. 12.

    The “proportion” is the ratio of Absentee Issued to Total Voters, both from [28]. In one ward the ratio is greater than 1: in “VILLAGE OF FOOTVILLE Ward 1” the ratio is 556/410.

  13. 13.

    Turnout is computed using the ratio of the recounted Total Votes from [29] over the number of registered voters from [34].

  14. 14.

    HRC vote proportion is computed using recounted vote counts in [2].

  15. 15.

    Turnout is the ratio of the precinct total of votes cast for president in the recount data  [2] over the total number of registered voters in the town the precinct is in  [3].

  16. 16.

    The active voter proportion is the ratio of ActiveVoters over RegisteredVoters, both town-level variables from [3].

References

  1. Barron County Board of Canvass. Minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/barron_county_unapproved_recount_minutes_pdf_15035.pdf

  2. Bureau of Elections. file by precinct.xlsx, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request from Melissa Malerman (MDOS), MI Bureau of Elections, 31 March 31 2017

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bureau of Elections. 2016 bienniel precinct report. file BiennialPrecinct2016\(\_\)531265\(\_\)7.pdf, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/BiennialPrecinct2016_531265_7.pdf, Michigan Department of State, 31 March 2017

  4. Burnett County Board of Canvassers. Recount minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/burnett_county_recount_minutes_pdf_11690.pdf

  5. California Secretary of State’s Office. Top-to-bottom review of electronic voting systems (2007). http://wwws.os.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/top-bottom-review/

  6. Campbell, B.A., Byrne, M.D.: Now do voters notice review screen anomalies? a look at voting system usability. In: EVT/WOTE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chippewa County Board of Canvass. Board of canvass minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/chippewa_county_recount_minutes_pdf_11482.pdf

  8. County of Buffalo. Date of recount: 12/1/2016 (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/buffalo_county_recount_minutes_pdf_15905.pdf

  9. Dunn County. Recount minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/dunn_county_recount_minutes_pdf_10781.pdf

  10. Friess, S.: Inside the Recount. The New Republic, February 2017. https://newrepublic.com/article/140254/inside-story-trump-clinton-stein-presidential-election-recount

  11. Grant County. Recount minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/grant_county_recount_minutes_pdf_17421.pdf

  12. Green Lake County Board of Canvassers. Recount minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/green_lake_county_recount_minutes_pdf_60039.pdf

  13. Gupta, P.: Jill Stein on What’s Next With the Recount Effort in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Cosmopolitan Magazine, December 2016. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8467128/jill-stein-voter-recount-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania/

  14. Halderman, J.A., Bernhard, M.: Recount 2016: An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election. Chaos Communications Congress, December 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Wo55F08-Y

  15. Herrnson, P.S., Niemi, R.G., Hanmer, M.J., Bederson, B.B., Conrad, F.G., Traugott, M.W.: Voting Technology: The Not-So-Simple Act of Casting a Ballot, Brookings, Washington, D.C. (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, R.: Election precinct results search. file 2016GEN.zip, http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/precinct_srch.cgi?elect_year_type=2016GEN&county_code=00&Submit=Search, Secretary of State, downloaded 28 March 2017

  17. Johnson, R.: Executive Summary of Audits Conducted in Detroit and Statewide in Relation to the 8 November 2016 General Election. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Combined_Detroit_Audit_Exec_summary_551188_7.pdf, 9 February 2017, Secretary of State

  18. Lindeman, M., Stark, P.B.: A gentle introduction to risk-limiting audits. IEEE Secur. Priv. 10, 42–49 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Marinette County. Date of recount: 1 December 2016 - agenda exhibit a (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/marinette_county_unapproved_recount_minutes_pdf_85823.pdf

  20. McDaniel, P., et al.: EVEREST: evaluation and validation of election-related equipment, standards and testing, December 2007. http://www.patrickmcdaniel.org/pubs/everest.pdf

  21. Mebane Jr., W.R., Sekhon, J.S.: Robust estimation and outlier detection for overdispersed multinomial models of count data. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 392–411 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Milwaukee County. Milwaukee county city of milwaukee canvass statement, recount election (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/city_of_milwaukee_wards_26_50_minutes_pdf_18183.pdf

  23. Oconto County Board of Canvass. Recount minutes (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/oconto_county_recount_minutes_pdf_86884.pdf

  24. ODNI. Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, January 2017. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

  25. Wand, J., Shotts, K., Sekhon, J.S., Mebane Jr., W.R., Herron, M., Brady, H.E.: The butterfly did it: the aberrant vote for buchanan in palm beach county, Florida. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95, 793–810 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Waupaca County. Waupaca county recount minutes part 2 (2016) http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/waupaca_county_recount_minutes_part_2_pdf_16707.pdf

  27. Waushara County Board of Canvassers. Recount of presidential race (2016). http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/recount_2016/waushara_county_recount_minutes_pdf_60143.pdf

  28. Wisconsin Elections Commission. 2016 general election el-190f: Election voting and registration statistics report. file 2016\(\_\)presidential\(\_\)and\(\_\)general\(\_\)election\(\_\)el\(\_\)190\(\_\)2017\(\_\)18402.xlsx, http://elections.wi.gov/node/4952, downloaded 10 May 2017

  29. Wisconsin Elections Commission. 2016 presidential recount. file Ward by Ward Original and Recount President of the United States.xlsx, http://elections.wi.gov/elections-voting/recount/2016-presidential, downloaded 4 February 2017

  30. Wisconsin Elections Commission. 2016 presidential recount county cost estimates and counting methods. http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/story/presidential_recount_county_cost_estimate_and_reco_16238.pdf, as of 19 May 2017

  31. Wisconsin Elections Commission. 2016 presidential recount results, county by county. http://elections.wi.gov/elections-voting/recount/2016-presidential/county-by-county, as of 19 May 2017

  32. Wisconsin Elections Commission. 2016 presidential recount results, county by county. files downloaded from URL http://elections.wi.gov/elections-voting/recount/2016-presidential/county-by-county, on 3 February 2017

  33. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Accessible voting equipment. http://elections.wi.gov/voters/accessibility/accessible-voting-equipment, as of 24 May 2017

  34. Wisconsin Elections Commission. 1 February 2017 voter registration statistics. file registeredvotersbywards\(\_\)xlsx\(\_\)48154.csv, http://elections.wi.gov/publications/statistics/registered-voters-2017-february-1, downloaded 4 February 2017

  35. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Voting equipment use by Wisconsin municipalities. file voting\(\_\)equipment\(\_\)by\(\_\)municipality\(\_\)09\(\_\)2016\(\_\)xlsx\(\_\)78114.xlsx, http://elections.wi.gov/elections-voting/voting-equipment/voting-equipment-use, downloaded 25 November 2016

  36. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Wisconsin recount results update - day 11. file explanation\(\_\)of\(\_\)changes\(\_\)per\(\_\)reporting\(\_\)unit\(\_\)12\(\_\)11\(\_\)16\(\_\)10043.pdf, http://elections.wi.gov/publications/statistics/recount/2016/12-11-spreadsheet, downloaded on 10 May 2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Haven Hall, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1045, USA

    Walter R. Mebane Jr.

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Bob and Betty Beyster Building, 2260 Hayward Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2121, USA

    Matthew Bernhard

Authors
  1. Walter R. Mebane Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Bernhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Bernhard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Aviv Zohar

  2. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Ittay Eyal

  3. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Vanessa Teague

  4. Concordia University, Beaconsfield, QC, Canada

    Jeremy Clark

  5. Computer Science and Mathematics, Stirling University, Stirling, UK

    Andrea Bracciali

  6. Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Federico Pintore

  7. Department of Mathematics, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Massimiliano Sala

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Financial Cryptography Association

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mebane, W.R., Bernhard, M. (2019). Voting Technologies, Recount Methods and Votes in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016. In: Zohar, A., et al. Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10958. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58819-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58820-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation