Over the weekend, I received a comment from a reader suggesting that "newer technology HAS already disrupted and changed final totals all across this nation." He suggests that if a system fails more than once, it should be replaced. "Accurate elections are too important," he concludes. I'll agree that newer technology, combined with mail-in ballots, have undermined public confidence in election integrity. But under this reader's logic, we'd have to get rid of democracy entirely to fix this problem. That is because ALL voting systems fail, and more than once. This can be established through our own history of voting. The only difference between the problems with elections now and those under other systems is that we are acutely aware of these problems on election day. That is because of voter verifiable ballots, under which voters can see for themselves if their intentions are being honored. Thus, when a problem is discovered on election day, voters are the first to know.
Voting in America was originally "viva vocce." If you were white, male and over 21, you'd go to the courthouse on election day, swear an oath and publicly announce your choices in front of everyone who was in there, actively campaigning. Obviously, the potential for fraud and abuse was great. You could easily sell your vote. But turnouts were great and alcohol flowed freely.
To prevent that, elections officials decided to replace voice voting with secret paper ballots. At its advent, you could just scrawl your candidate's name on any piece of paper. Then political parties got wise, and began preparing their own ballots (called tickets) that you could throw in the box. This led to accusations of voter fraud and ballot box stuffing, something that I'm told (anecdotally) did happen here as ballot boxes made their way to the courthouse from the four corners of the county.
In an effort to prevent this kind of fraud. the first green monster - a heavy lever voting machine - was invented and widely used in America throughout the 20th century. Like an old Crown Victoria, something about those hulking machines inspired confidence. Draped in a privacy curtain, you could select individual levers or straight party and then cast your ballot by pulling the main lever to open the curtain. You'd hear a solid thud and would be confident that your vote was cast.
But did your vote actually count? Behind that secure curtain, there were problems.
"For one, these machines had thousands of moving parts. They required careful maintenance and were difficult to test. When the last machines were produced in 1982, fixing and replacing worn parts became nearly impossible. Lever voting machines were also not tamperproof: they were vulnerable to the very technicians who were supposed to maintain them. The machines were also inaccessible to voters with physical limitations: the labels with candidates’ names were hard to see, and pulling the levers required strength and mobility."
As the teeth on gears began to wear, the result would be miscounts rarely caught by elections officials. Everyone had confidence in and loved these behemoths, but they were increasing undercounts in elections.
Some jurisdictions began replacing the lever machines with punch cards, but that was a nightmare. We witnessed that during the 2020 Presidential, when election workers in Florida had to decide whether a dimpled or hanging chad should count.
Northampton County fought to keep the lever machines in place as long as it could, but eventually had to replace them.
In its first foray into life beyond the lever, NorCo chose what may very well have been the worst voting machine in the US. - the
AVS WinVote. This system was so bad that music on your cell phone could cause it to go haywire. To make matters worse, the version NorCo used in an election
had never been certified. Oops!
 |
| touchscreen that looked like a lever machine |
Northampton County then opted for 300 touch screen voting machines that at least looked like the old lever machines. -
the Advantage D-10. This heavy (200 pounds) touchscreen computer was user friendly, even to those who are differently abled. People really liked using it, and I'm unaware of any problems with it other than screen sensitivity. But it had one major drawback. Just like its green cousin, there was no way for a voter to determine if his touchscreen choices were actually registered.
In response to concerns that there be a paper trail, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act, which required the states, over time, to have a paper record of each vote cast, and one that the voter himself could verify.
That's how Northampton County ended up with the Express Vote XL, which combines the convenience of a touch screen with a summary card on which you can review your choices. If you dislike them, you can spoil your ballot and choose again before casting your vote. Some people liked paper ballots that could be scanned, but I liked the redundancy of having my vote on both a flash drive and paper ballot, and with the understanding that the paper ballot rules.
In 2019 and again this year, there have been problems with this system. The machine itself has been fine. It has been certified and recertified. It survived challenges in both federal and state court. There have been problems with programming, pre-election testing and having paper ballot backups at the polls. This has understandably created a crisis of confidence. But these are problems that would never have been noticed but for the voter verifiable ballot.
Like you, I'm unhappy to see just one voter deprived of that right, which certainly happened. But thanks to the paper trail, voters and elections officials were able to detect a problem and make attempts to fix it.
The days of blissful ignorance are over. Our confidence in the green lever machines was misplaced. The paper trails we see on elections day can make them more sloppy and chaotic. But they will be more accurate.
