We're ALL Responsible For Tonight's Voting Machine Selection

"Memo to County leadership: Don't screw it up this time!"

That's one anonymous comment to yesterday's post about five different voting systems being considered by Northampton County. You'll notice no vendor is recommended. This person just wants someone to blame if things go wrong.

"I'm not selecting the voting machine."

That's how one Northampton County Council member responded when I mentioned different voting machine possibilities yesterday. Like that anonymous commenter, this council member is more interested in ducking responsibility. "The elections commission will decide."

Council members view the elections commission as a convenient escape hatch. If the system chosen is a disaster, they can point their fingers. But under our home rule charter, that appointed body exists to "administer the system of elections and the registration of voters under applicable law." According to the courts, its function is purely ministerial. It sets no policy. That's council's job. Council exercises the county's residual powers.

On Tuesday, as the county's newly appointed elections commission reviewed different possibilities, I was encouraged by the many citizens - like Dottie Niklos and Walter Garvin - who were there. At least four members of county council sat in on the session. I was discouraged when elections commission member Joan Rosenthal dismissed, as inappropriate, concerns about different vendors voiced by Lilly Gioia, herself a former elections commission member.

What could be more appropriate than that?

But let's get something straight. The decision will be made tonight. An unelected elections commission, which is meeting as I write this blog, will merely be making a recommendation. Tonight, when county council makes a decision, it will be our decision. And we all have the right to address them with our own opinions and concerns. Some like the Sequoia selection because it is difficult to hack, can be retrofitted for a paper trail, and looks amazingly like our lever machines. I've opted for the sole optical scanner under consideration, which will give us a paper trail and a check on the count displayed by the scanner.

Whether we get it right or not, this is our collective responsibility.

Optical Scan Among Five Voting Choices Provided to Three Pa. Counties

If the New York Times Magazine is right, Pennsylvania will be the "next Florida," focal point of our next electoral storm. Whether that prediction is true or not, people are paying attention. At yesterday's public demonstration of five different voting systems, the training room was packed with concerned members of the public, local party officials, reporters, elections commission members, and at least four members of a Northampton County Council that now has just one day to make a decision. Representatives of Wayne and Lackawanna County were also present.

County Exec John Stoffa sat forlornly in the back of the room, and was probably asking himself, "How the hell did this mess happen?"

I felt like I was looking at the few items left on the shelves on Christmas Eve, when I do most of my shopping. It's a very limited choice. I listened to the presentations, but missed the questions from the public. Fortunately, Dottie Niklos stuck around, tested each machine, and was kind enough to share her views. I'll let you know what she thinks about each system.

1. Sequoia Advantage D-10: (state certification contains restrictions). Colorado, concerned about reliability, decertified this system in December. Dottie's take: My first choice would be the Sequoia. It has a screen identical to our lever machines, but lights up when a candidate is selected. It supplies an internal paper trail of the vote for verification, and can be retrofitted with a cut and drop paper ballot that is seen by the voter before vote confirmation . The write-in option is a keyboard and enters the printed name in the box on the screen for verification by the voter. This machine, like all the others, does an auto tally and stores the tally and vote history electronically. BUT this machine is electronic and not networked so that there is no software necessary. This is an advantage because it cannot be hacked. Availability? A mix of new and refurbished.

2. ES & S iVotronic: (state certification contains restrictions)
This is the state's biggest supplier of voting machines, servicing thirty-six counties. But in 2006, ES&S was plagued by complaints of poor quality control (faulty memory cards), poor service, and problems with election preparation. In a Florida congressional race, there was an 18,000 undervote. But that's not what bothers me most. According to a Colorado report, this voting machine can be disabled by simply running a magnet across the touch-screen. Wired reports that, with nothing more than a magnet and a palm pilot or cell phone, you can prevent voters from voting for specific candidates or cause the machine to secretly record a voter's vote for a different candidate than the one the voter chose. Colorado has decertified this system. Dottie's take: The ESS has several features, such as the disc packet, that has to be entered. That makes errors by poll workers a distinct possibility. The loading of the machine seems less than efficient and it would appear that the transfer of data is manual, especially for absentees. Availabilty? Only "reconditioned" machines.

3. Hart InterCivic e-Scan & Hart InterCivic e-Slate: (state certification granted). Most of us agree that optically scanned ballots are the best available voting technology. The voter can see for herself that her ballot is cast, and there's a paper copy. But this system has an Ethernet port on the back, and guess what? That's right, bippy, you can just jack into that port and rewrite the recorded votes. Wheee! Colorado just dumped this system, too. Dottie's take: The Hart Machines are interesting, BUT the scanners can pick up stray marks invalidate the ballot or register the vote incorrectly. This just seems like hanging chads to me. It also requires that a touch screen be at each location for the visually impaired. Availability? Brand spankin' new.

4. Danaher ELECTronic 1242: (state certification granted). This system, another lever machine imitation, has been around since 1986. It has all kinds of goofy flashing red lights, too. At one point during the demo, I could swear I heard someone say, "You sunk my battleship!" Incidentally, this is the machine that gave Bush thousands of extra votes in Ohio. Dottie's take: The electec is a familiar screen, but it is large and cumbersome in comparison to others, and uses Microsoft software. It also uses a pop open panel for hand written votes for the write in which is not as easily managed as the keyboard. Availability? A mix of new and refurbished.

5. Diebold (now Premier) AccuVote TSX: (state certification granted with restrictions) This is one of the few systems that passed the recent testing in Colorado. But it was just declared vulnerable in Ohio, and will be phased out. Yes, this is what you bastards in Lehigh County use. Thanks to you, we all know it can't take a hammer shot. One member of council likes this machine. Dottie's take: "The Diebold looked fragile and somewhat complicated to administer and to use for some voters." Dottie, are you saying we're dumber than Lehigh County voters? Availability? Brand new!

I wish we had a bigger selection. Although four optical scanning systems have been certified, only one was demonstrated yesterday. What about the others?

The citizens' advisory panel that studied our elections last year made this recommendation in its final report: "The County should both advocate and prepare for the purchase and use of voting machines that generate a voter-verifiable paper trail." If we follow that advice, we should take a closer look Hart's E-Scan. Former elections commissioner Lilly Gioia warns that Hart's offering may result in stray marks, and she may be right. But it's also clear that optical scanning is the only way to create a true paper trail.