After problems encountered in the 2000 elections Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The goal of this legislation was to set minimum federal standards for election voting systems to improve accuracy in counting the vote, identifying certain types of ballot invalidations – e.g. under and over voting – before the voter finally casts their vote, and improved accessibility for handicapped voters. Each state is responsible for testing and certifying individual voting systems as being in compliance with HAVA standards and each county can select equipment from the state’s list of approved systems. HAVA provides funding which partially offsets the initial costs of new voting systems and the associated training for local election officials.

The new voting systems have significantly different cost structures compared to the older mechanical lever machines used in Bucks County. Some examples of these costs are:

Initial purchase,. # machines needed/1000 voters, maintenance and part replacement (back-up batteries, touch screens, etc), special warehouse storage, equipment service lifetimes, election set up costs (County employees and vendor service contracts), paper ballot back-ups in case of computer malfunctions.

In this context it is particularly interesting that Florida’s Miami-Dade County initially purchased and used Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) or touch screen computer systems in their 2002 and 2004 elections. Now, however, Miami-Dade proposes to abandon DREs in favor of Optical Scan (OS) devices. The principal reason is the lower overall system cost of OS systems. By their analysis the cost of the initial purchase of DREs would be recovered in “a few election cycles” from the lower total system costs of the OS technology.

The following statements are from the report of Mr. Lester Sola, Supervisor of Elections Miami-Dade: “Desirability and Feasibility of Converting to an Optical Scan Voting System,” dated May 27, 2005.

 “Optical scan … which provides printed ballots on which voters either filling an oval or bubble or draw an arrow indicating their choices, much in the same way that students indicate their answers on standardized tests. Counties purchasing optical scan readers are required to provide in-precinct ballot reading equipment, into which the voter inserts the ballot and receives an alert in the case of an overvote or undervote, giving the voter the opportunity to correct his other selection. In 2004, about 32% of voters nationwide used this kind of equipment according to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC).”

“Direct Recording Electronic (or DRE. which includes "touch screen" equipment), provides computerized terminals on which voters make their selections. The equipment does not allow overvotes and alerts the voter to an undervote, giving him or her the opportunity to make a selection if he or she intended to do so. In 2004, about 29% of voters nationwide used this kind of equipment, according to the EAC.”

“Brief History.  In 2002, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) … selected Election Systems and Software's (ES&S) "iVotronic" touch screen equipment at an initial cost of $24.5 million. ... In all, 16 of Florida's 67 counties selected touch screen equipment; the remainder selected … optical scan equipment. … Thus, the majority of counties selected optical scan, although a large proportion of voters use touch screen equipment - while all counties … use optical scan equipment for absentee voting.

“Counties appear to have believed that .. a perceived automation of the ballot creation and tabulation process was increasingly sensible with a more complex operation, measured by factors such as the number of registered voters, number of precincts and number of languages provided. That is, the larger one-time capital investment required for electronic voting equipment was expected to be offset by a simplified operation and lower future operating expenses resulting from savings related to less use of paper and labor.”

“After functioning in several smaller municipal elections. the iVotronic (DRE) system made its large-scale debut in the September 2002 Primary Election. Unfortunately, the election was not a success. The combination of iVotronic terminals that could not "boot up" quickly enough to be ready by 7 a.m. and poll workers who were not prepared to address such challenges left lines of voters waiting outside many polling places after they should have been able to begin voting. Following that election, the County devoted unprecedented resources to ensure the success of the November 2002 Gubernatorial Election.  …[n]umerous other County departments assisted the Elections Department, and the election was widely considered to be a success, albeit at an estimated cost of $8 million, not including some interdepartmental support. (… Countywide elections through 2000 had generally cost approximately $1.5 million.)”

“On-going Fiscal Issues  Instead of yielding future savings, as was reasonably expected, the [initial] $24.5 million expenditure led to more required expenditures. Indications are that still more [unanticipated] expenditures … are impending. For example, ES&S has informed me that we must replace the back-up batteries in our 7,200 iVotronic terminals at a cost of $147.50 per unit, or approximately $1 million …”

“… from a fiscal standpoint, the decision facing this County is not whether to spend money on new equipment or not, but whether to continue spending money on our current equipment versus investing in new equipment that may simplify our operation and generate future operational savings …”

“Still, the [DRE] system is designed in such a way that we would always have to rely on ES&S to a significant degree. We must purchase specialized equipment and replacement parts, and we are in no control over, for example, upgrades that could improve our operation.”

Voter confidence  “… the number of undetermined votes in our county has dropped significantly [since 2000] with the new system. However, a number of people in our community – some who are members of organized groups, but also many individuals from different parts of our county …- have expressed concern about a system that, in their view, does not provide a true auditable paper record of votes.”

“An OS system provides a tangible record of votes that can be recounted even in … [the] case of a complete electronic failure. With our current [DRE] system, the coding, casting of ballots, and tabulation .. . are inextricably intertwined. Thus a front-end coding error early in the ballot preparation process … can ultimately affect the tabulation of an election. With an OS system, a coding or tabulation error could have been corrected after the fact …”

“… in reality, only OS provides an auditable paper record that is independent of the tabulation system.”

“An in-person touch screen voter was 46% more likely to cast an invalid vote (0.42%) than an in-person OS voter (0.29%).”

Optical Scan elections in Miami-Dade  “… we have analyzed the actual efforts and costs associated with the November 2004 Presidential Election and compared them with the efforts and costs that would have been required to administer the same election using an optical scan system. Our analysis shows that the election could have cost up to $2.32 million less with an OS system: smaller election would experience smaller but nonetheless significant savings. The savings would come from a decreased use of inter-departmental support …. A less technologically complex system … Additionally, we would rely significantly less on high-level technical support from a vendor. We would also be able to discontinue the practice of printing [and delivering] hundreds of thousands of “substitute” paper ballots … in case of [electronic] equipment failure.”

“The lower operating costs [of OS], coupled with the elimination of future capital and maintenance expenses associated with the touch-screen system [DRE], would allow the County to recover the estimated purchase price of $9.4 million to $12.3 million [for new OS system] within a few election cycles.”

Conclusions  “The Elections Department has administered several successful large-scale touch screen [DRE] elections. We now have the opportunity to draw upon knowledge that only years of experience can provide, to further improve our County’s elections.  …. I would embrace the opportunity to lead an effort [conversion from DRE to OS] that, based on initial analysis, could deliver improved [voter] confidence and more fiscally sound elections to our taxpayers.”