Rethink the VCA
If the voting machine system ain’t broke, don’t spend taxpayer money to fix it.
by Rich HoldenArticle Tools
In 2008, the Tennessee state legislature passed what is known as the Voter Confidence Act. The act assumes that voters will become more confident in election outcomes if our state converts all counties to using paper ballots rather than the electronically counted results we use in Shelby County today.
The act also directs the counties to use optical scanning systems to tally the votes on the paper ballots. It seems to clearly call for purchasing optical scanning devices, certified by the Elections Assistance Commission, that can meet the 2005 standards required by federal law under the Help America Vote Act. One other point of interest is that all counties are required to be in compliance with the provisions of this act no later than November 2010.
When it meets in January, the General Assembly should revise the act's deadline provisions or, better, rethink it altogether.
We estimate the costs of printing paper ballots for each Shelby countywide election to be about $400,000. There would be additional costs for the secure handling and custody of these printed ballots and additional manpower costs as well. Using paper ballots creates the need for what is known as "ballot-on-demand." Each precinct would print individual ballots for voters when they present themselves — a far slower process than using the touch screens we have in place today.
Overall costs for replacing the touch-screen system with optical scanners and ballot-on-demand would run to about $12 million for Shelby County. That money would be provided by federal dollars, per the Help America Vote Act. However, the act requires only one apparatus per precinct. We have great population disparities between precincts — with some having as few as 1,500 voters and others having as many as 5,000. It is obvious that there would be longer waits to vote if we limited ourselves to a single federally funded voting apparatus per precinct. And additional voting machines would have to be paid for by Shelby County taxpayers.
Our current touch-screen system is what is known as a direct recording electronic system. Votes are recorded electronically and securely, and, best of all, this system has been paid for already, at a cost of $4 million to $6 million. Half of the funds used to pay for our current system were federal dollars, with the other half paid by Shelby County taxpayers.
The federal funds paid for only one machine per precinct. To properly service our voters, Shelby County purchased additional machines to accommodate each precinct.
The optical scanner machines actually offer little difference in the way votes are tallied. Once you complete your ballot, your vote will be scanned into the Opti-Scan counting machine — yes, electronically. About all this new mandated voting system offers us is a paper record. Many people, who do not understand the security of touch-screen voting, advocate a paper ballot trail. This is akin to using a typewriter instead of a computer. Why go backward, at a cost of $12 million, plus additional Shelby County taxpayer funds?
The outcry from voters in favor of paper ballots is nonexistent. The outcry from candidates and elected officials is also nonexistent. The need for paper ballots and optical scanners is arguably nonexistent. Why, then, are we doing this? The arguments by those in favor of paper ballots are that it provides a paper trail of votes and that the federal government has approved the money for this backward technology.
In these difficult economic times, we do not need to spend money just because it is there. We do not need to create new costs for elections, unless we are improving or upgrading the process to benefit voters.
We are currently using the most accurate, secure, and state-of-the-art voting system in Shelby County. We have paid for it, and it is operating very well. Let the counties that need election system upgrades have the allocated funds to purchase the voting system best for their communities. Give the rest back to the federal government. No doubt they can use it for better causes. Rich Holden, a Republican, is chief administrator for the Shelby County Election Commission.
Showing 1-5 of 16
Add a comment | All comments »
Please, Flyer, tell me you aren't going to allow this BS to go unchallenged by an official spokesperson for reality.
When considering this subjest, you have to ask yourself a simple question. Why would someone argue in favor of keeping an easily-hacked (proven, no matter what he claims), unsafe, unsecure, expensive vote tabulating machine, rather than replacing it with a cheaper to operate and maintain, easier to use, faster, difficult to hack, proven safe and secure vote tabulating machine?
What possible reason could the bank's security officer have for insisting we leave the doors unlocked and hire his ex-con brother-in-law?
My vote is important to me. I never, ever leave the bank without a receipt for my deposit, and when I vote, I am depositing my vote in the hands of those who count the votes. Those who count the votes decide who wins the election. I want to be certain, when I vote, or when I go to the bank, or when I use the ATM, that some person with a desperate need isn't going to flip the numbers in my bank account or flip the direction of my vote.
Electronic voting machines should be at least as secure as ATM bank machines. They are made by the same companies, after all. So why is it that the same security measures available on ATM machines are just impossible and too expensive for voting machines?
Going back to paper ballots will result in long lines during major elections and discourage many to vote.
Despair not, Jeff; the contrary point of view is very likely to appear in the op-ed space quite soon. Perhaps next week.
Jackson, that's good news. It's a shame it couldn't have been on the same page, though.
Anon (really, Rich, next time be brave enough to use your real name), the complete opposite is true. I vote in a district with paper scan ballots. During the presidential election, the line was enormously long, but that was because of the slowness of the sign-up table, and that bottleneck is the same whether you use paper ballots or touch screens. Once past that, I breezed through, even though the gymnasium was literally packed with people, shoulder to shoulder.
The same situation, using touch screens, would have take hours. With paper ballots, dozens of people are able to vote at the same time, because table booths are cheaper and require less space that e-voting machines. There were probably thirty people all filling out their ballots at the same time, compared to what, six or eight working touch screens, even at the busiest wards? Then you feed your ballot into a scanner, which takes all of two seconds.
In any case, your argument is without merit because which is more important? Voting quickly or voting securely? Air traffic would go a lot more smoothly, too, if they just waved everybody through and got rid of those slow, expensive metal detectors. Is that what you want?
1. The state already has the plenty of money through federal funding.
But IF you insist on keeping your flawed paperless voting machines, then the TN Secretary of State needs to return the millions of $ of Federal money that was allocated to the state through the 2002 federal act called HAVA.
By the way, what IS the SOS doing with that HAVA money? Where does the interest go on those multi millions? Other states have had their HAVA funds audited and charges have been brought.
2. Voting is much quicker on paper ballots that are optically scanned. That is because it takes about 1 second to feed the paper ballot into the optical scanner. It is quick. Voters only need a flat surface to mark their ballots. Right now, in most Tenn counties, voters have to wait their turn to use a voting machine to vote and get their vote recorded. These touchscreen or direct record machines cost around $3,500 and up. One touchscreen machine can handle about 115 more or less voters in a normal election day. Compare that to one optical scan machine that can handle 3,000 ballots in one day.
3. Once you switch to paper ballots optically scanned (good enough for schools to record multiple choice tests on), you can expect the undervote rate to drop.
In North Carolina, in 2006, we made the switch, using HAVA funds (like your state is sitting on earning interest for several years) and our undervote rate for president was cut in half.
4. With touchscreens, there is no original voter intent to use to reconstruct the election from, no recovery plan if a machine loses votes or switches votes. We found out in NC in 2004 when a machine lost 4,400 votes that could not be recovered. Florida saw 18,000 undervotes in a congressional race that was hotly contested. Without paper ballots you have no recourse.
Prevent Election Fiascoes in Tennessee – Enact Paper Ballot Law ...
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2009/08/1…
See www.ncvoter.net
Flyer Flashback
Flyer Flashback
To mark the Flyer's 20th anniversary, we're looking back at stories from our first two decades.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
Comments (16) RSS