To the Editor:

 

In regards to your March 17 editorial favoring the commissioners' decision about the Danaher voting machines, I would like to say that the Intelligencer should consider a more in-depth look into this issue, just like the Coalition for Voting Integrity has done. I and my fellow coalition members did not stand out in the freezing cold during our rallies  just so could say we should give up our fight and side with the commissioners' decision.   

     The point of our rallies and the coalition as a whole was and still is to inform the people of Bucks County that they have a right to make their votes count by choosing optical-scanning paper ballot machines that verify their votes. Favoring the commissioners' decision made this past Wednesday, towards Danaher electronic machines, is like favoring a supermarket that doesn't print out receipts for the groceries you buy. A part of the GAO's (Government Accountability Office) report states that these machines are "unsecure and unreliable." It is true that the lever machines don't provide paper verification, but the lever machines are mechanical and not electronic.

     The machines in Philadelphia also ran into problems during the 2004 election when some of the votes were "lost" and there wasn't any verification. Voters in states such as Maryland complained that these types of machines have malfunctioned when they voted for the candidate of their choice, only to see their vote change to the opposing candidate as they left the machine. How could your newspaper endorse this machine?

     I recommend that those reading this letter look into this issue by visiting the coalition's website or by using other Internet resources.

 

Sean Heck
Doylestown