11:45 AM
Connect Directly

Clear Ballot's Mission: Fast Audits Of Election Results

Software audits voting results in time for elections officials to fix problems before results are certified. Trials begin in Florida, New York, and New Hampshire in November.

Social Studies: Obama vs. Romney
Social Studies: Obama vs. Romney
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
How can election officials verify that they've correctly counted all of the votes cast in a local, state, or federal election, for example to select the next U.S. president?

Three-year-old software company Clear Ballot wants to help, by providing precincts with technology that generates an independent audit of voting results before the election must be legally certified by the election department. "Think of [certification] as a legal safe harbor for an election department to find and fix any issues that may have arisen, ether due to clerical error or machine error," said Larry Moore, CEO and founder of Clear Ballot--and also a force behind the launch of Lotus Notes--by phone.

The window for certifying elections varies by state. In Florida, for example, it's seven days, while in California it's four weeks. "After the certification, it takes an order of a judge to go back," he said. "So our design goal is to be able to completely confirm the election within the tightest of certification windows."

Why audit elections? Moore said he founded Clear Ballot after seeing a "disturbing" Emmy-award-nominated 2006 HBO documentary called Hacking Democracy. "What I didn't realize at the time was that the voting system is computers. We all know about computers, and the vulnerabilities that computers can have to inside and outside attacks," he said. "And while I feel after being in this [field] for three years that that's a relatively rare occurrence, the threat still exists."

[ Get some tips for following the presidential election season. See Social Media Guide To The Presidential Debates. ]

While hacking voting systems is a potential concern, so are user errors. For example, an audit of a March 13, 2012, election in Wellington, Fla., triggered a recount, which found that votes for two candidates--in two different elections--had been accidentally switched. As a result, election officials had declared the wrong winners in two different races, reported The Palm Beach Post. "It was by pure chance that this was caught," said Moore.

Another threat to the voting process is legitimacy, and proving to voters that their ballots were counted accurately. For example, a June 2012 poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 50% of U.S. voters don't think elections are fair to voters.

But when a ballot goes through a voting system, the optical scanning machine "counts" vote totals, discarding results that it can't read. "A voting system would look at that [data] and not allow you to review it," said Jordan Esten, director of business development for Clear Ballot, speaking by phone.

That's why conducting a full-fledged recount of an election--or even an audit, using a sample of ballots cast--is so time-consuming. First, all relevant cast ballots must be located for a given precinct, and they might be spread between hundreds of different ballot boxes. The recount must also involve absentee ballots and, in some states, early voting. Each ballot must then be reviewed by hand, and questionable marks might be subject to further review or debate. Cue days or weeks of work, not to mention related expenses.

Clear Vote
Voter Intent Isn't Always Clear

In comparison to that approach, Clear Ballot's software looks at the entire ballot as if it were a graphical image, and then examines how the marks look, as well as where they're placed. Clear Ballot's software then groups all votes into one of four categories: votes (only one candidate has been selected, and the mark is clear), over votes (people have voted for more than one candidate for the same post), under votes (nothing selected), and non-votes (either there are no marks for a candidate, or the marks are unclear). The software then presents this information to a user, allowing them to rapidly review--visually--all questionable votes, as well as to designate which, if any, should be counted as actual votes, and which should be discarded.

"Here's the claim we make: that an ordinary citizen with just a little bit of orientation can determine for themselves the exact count for a given candidate in under a minute," said Moore. "So that becomes our audit: We bring the human element back into efficiently deciding voter intent."

Moore said that the Clear Ballot software can currently process and create visualizations for about a quarter-million votes in just one minute. Doing a manual recount of all of those ballots by hand, however, would generally take one month.

What types of voting technology can be audited by Clear Ballot? Its software works with optically scanned paper ballots, but not with touchscreen voting machines, which don't leave an audit trail. "That's the problem with touchscreens, there's really no way to audit them," said Moore. "But 75% of the country--and growing--is moving over to optically scanned paper ballots. So what we have in this country is a growing, verifiable election methodology that's not being routinely verified, and one of the reasons it's not been routinely verified is there's been no classical methodology for doing that, other than a very small, random, handout example."

The Clear Ballot software isn't yet available for commercial release, but the latest round of pilots will take place next month in parts of New York, New Hampshire, as well as in Florida, where the company will be "processing about 1.8 million pages," said Moore. "This will be the mother of all pilots."

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
10/12/2012 | 11:52:41 AM
re: Clear Ballot's Mission: Fast Audits Of Election Results
I think it is better to wait a day for results and get them right by counting all ballots rather than expect results within an hour and make every election for every office a matter of the courts. I found that a paper ballot and a pen are the way to go. Throw all this expensive digital stuff on the same scrap heap like lever machines and other interesting gadgetry from centuries past. Then collect all ballots in sealed ballot boxes, then have the count be open to the public. That way everyone can observe how many ballots are submitted and how many get counted and how many get tossed and especially why. Many democracies do exactly that for a long time with excellent results. Is it really so important to some to reserve the right to tweak the results just so that they come out on top? Apparently so, follow the flow of money between the few companies that make electronic voting machines and the ones who gain most of skewed results.
User Rank: Apprentice
10/10/2012 | 9:14:48 PM
re: Clear Ballot's Mission: Fast Audits Of Election Results

Your article of how software can glean the voter's intent is/may be a move in the right direction when and where we use machines to count the votes. And this improvement in software should be encouraged if is cost effective and brings our machine count processes in all 50 states back to 100% confidence level, so that the voter's "Full Voting Rights" is the prime driver in any election process/law changes we make.

In your article it is indicated: "...50% of U.S. voters don't think elections are fair to voters..."

It is my (and others) sense that the election process is not fair (where machines are used).

This observation is not solely at machine count but also at hand count. The fact is that most count processes put the citizen/voters last or out of the picture all together. The laws and process ignore the voter's "Full Voting Rights". You have cited some of the defects in your article.

Thanks and kepp up your good works,

Frank Henry
Cottonwood, Arizona
(Election Integrity Observer)
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 and FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2334 and CVE-2014-2335.

Published: 2014-10-31
SQL injection vulnerability in the administrative web interface in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted response, aka Bug ID CSCup88089.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.