Candidates Coy About Audits
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010Three of the four candidates for Secretary of State have replied to my query about voting machine audits. None had much to say.
Even incumbent Michael Mauro managed only two sentences. Mauro said, “I do not believe anyone is against audits. What needs to be agreed on is the procedure for doing the audit.”
But the bill that died in the legislature this spring was hardly onerous. If everyone is for audits, they should have been able to accept that bill as a starting point. Maybe they mean something different by the term “audits” and that’s why they can’t agree. I had expected a more complete answer from Mauro.
Republican George Eichhorn managed a ten sentence answer, but only one sentence was about audits: “The statistical sampling of votes after elections is a prudent safeguard
that should be established in Iowa.” I’m encouraged that he mentions “statistical” as a standard, a better goal than random sampling that has no statistical thinking involved. If we are going to do any auditing, we might as well get our money’s worth by doing an audit with statistical significance.
Eichhorn also recognized that email voting will be a new problem, so that was more good news about him.
Republican Chris Sanger sent the most expansive email reply, but not the most pertinent. The closest he came to showing he understood the need for audits was in his first words: “I am Pro-Audit. We need transparency in our voting system; it is something the People want and deserve.”
Sanger seems more concerned with voters pretending to be someone they are not, or ambitious voters who try to vote in numerous precincts than he is with the votes that are actually cast. These are truly imaginary problems in Iowa.
Finally there is that Republican from Council Bluffs. He did not respond at all. Earlier this year he did not respond to a previous voting machine question I sent to his website. He may remain nameless here.
In short, the candidates do not share the urgency of the statisticians who called for “audits with teeth.” The replies from the candidates are all pretty toothless.