If the facts don’t fit, make something up
Recently, Sequoia distributed a press release to New York State legislators and election officials implying that the DREs it hopes to sell New York had received top ratings in the recent Brennan Center Usability Study. Unfortunately, this extremely misleading press release makes statements which directly contradict the actual conclusions of the Brennan Center Study. Using such deception in a widely distributed press release at a critical moment in New York’s voting system certification and selection process is not only false advertising; it assumes that New York officials who received the release won’t look at the facts behind Sequoia’s spin.
In almost every sentence the claims made in Sequoia’s press release are misleading, if not unabashedly false. To understand the context you need to take a look at the three statements made right at the top of the press release:
Sequoia Voting Systems' AVC Edge Receives Best Rating
in New Brennan Center Report on Usability
Wednesday September 20, 3:04 pm ET
Used in Nevada for 2004 Presidential Election, Sequoia's DRE With VVPAT Produces Lowest Residual Vote Rate of All Voting Systems
Full-Faced DRE Most Secure, Reliable, Accessible and Accurate Voting Solution for New York
NEW YORK, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Sequoia Voting Systems' AVC Edge, a touch screen Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting system, received the top usability rating of any voting machine in the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law's recent report…
Let’s take a look, line by line, at these statements.
The Big Lie – Want Fries with that Whopper?
Line 1 – “Sequoia Voting Systems' AVC Edge Receives Best Rating in New Brennan Center Report on Usability”
They start right off with a whopper. The Brennan Report doesn’t rate voting machines. It evaluates how different types of voting systems affect a voter’s ability to accurately record their votes. It’s not some Consumer Reports style “Top Ten Voting Machines” article that gives 1 star to this DRE and 5 stars to that ballot scanner. So right off the bat they’re implying the report is something that it’s not - a contest, and one that they have won. And as we’ll see, if it had been a contest, Sequoia would have lost - big time.
Line 2 – “ Used in Nevada for 2004 Presidential Election, Sequoia's DRE With VVPAT Produces Lowest Residual Vote Rate of All Voting Systems”
Here we have an example of using selective report data in order to give a false impression. The report has a table which shows the percentages of lost votes for a type of voting system which cannot be used in New York - scrolling DRE systems. This particular table does not include optical scanners or full face ballot DREs, just scrolling DREs. Indeed, the report later concludes that scanners result in far fewer lost votes than full face ballot DREs, something which New York officials might want to know since scanners and full face DREs are their only two options.
The table lists the scrolling Sequoia DREs used in Nevada (the AVC Edge) as having the lowest percentage of “residual”, or lost, votes. But Sequoia ignores the Brennan Center report’s clear statement that the low percentage for the AVC Edge is not to be trusted (emphasis added):
“Only one state, Nevada, used a DRE system with VVPT in the 2004 election. In addition, Nevada is the only state in the country that includes a “none of the above” option on the ballot for federal and statewide elections. This option reduces undervotes, regardless of the voting system being used, because it allows voters who wish to cast a protest vote to do so without registering a “lost” vote. Because no other states used comparable systems or ballot options, the data are too limited to draw any conclusions regarding residual vote rates. […] but this figure is not directly comparable to that produced by other jurisdictions with different ballot options.”
The Brennan Report explicitly notes that AVC Edge results are NOT VALID because of Nevada’s unique ballots! But Sequoia neglects to mention this key fact, misleading the reader by cherry picking data.
Line 3 – “Full-Faced DRE Most Secure, Reliable, Accessible and Accurate Voting Solution for New York”
In the context of the first two statements, this statement implies that the Brennan Report has found the full face ballot DREs which Sequoia is pitching to New York to be the best of the bunch. But this is the exact opposite of the truth – the report concludes that full face ballot DREs result in more lost votes than any other type of voting system – including ballot scanners, New York’s non-DRE alternative. That’s right; the report finds that full face DREs have significantly higher rates of lost votes rates than other electronic voting systems! And, as noted, New York requires full face ballots on any DREs used in the state. The only other available choice is precinct based ballot scanners, which the Brennan Report concludes result in fewer lost votes. But from the blather spewing from Sequoia’s spin machine you wouldn’t know that full face ballot DREs are the worst alternative available to New York.
Some might say that Line 3 is just an opinion about full face machines, not a statement about the Brennan Report conclusions. But in communication, context definitely matters. And the prior statements lead the reader to incorrectly believe that Sequoia’s full face DREs have won the endorsement of the Brennan Center for Justice. And this of course, is the exact opposite of the truth.
Maybe a lawyer would say Sequoia’s claims are not technically ‘false’, or are just ‘opinions’. But even without reading the rest of the press release (which continues in the same vein) it’s plain to see the intent to hoodwink the reader. In my opinion, the Sequoia press release obscures the truth – making statements that are deceptive where they are not outright fabrications.
Sequoia must think we’re a bunch of rubes out here in the Empire State. It’s pretty audacious for a company hoping to make hundreds of millions in profits on the backs of New York taxpayers to be lying to our officials, and by extension, to we citizens.
Hey Sequoia, next time, try a little truth.
