To the Editor: 

In your article on voting machines on July 27, David Sanko, Bucks County’s chief operating officer, is quoted as saying that the new voting machines will be easier to use than lever machines, and that the program to educate the public on how to use the machines was like “your bank giving you a VHS tape on how to use your ATM.”  

While it is easy to learn to push a button on these new voting machines, it differs tremendously from an ATM machine.  When you use an ATM machine, you get a paper receipt which allows you to verify that what you intended to happen with your money did, indeed, happen.

With the Danaher voting machine, you can push the button next to your candidate’s name very easily, but you cannot verify that the programming in the cartridge recorded your vote for the candidate you intended .And there is no way to conduct a meaningful recount as the Danaher voting machine does not have a voter-verified paper record.  

Common Cause and the Brennan Center for Justice have just issued reports based on year-long studies by computer experts that back up the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office’s report that the “security and reliability concerns” about electronic voting machines “have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”   

Nevertheless, I encourage all people to go to the polls this November in the hope that the programming is done correctly, that no security lapses occur, and that the votes are counted accurately.    

And I hope that by the next election, we will have a voting system that is secure and accurate because the voter can verify his vote.

Madeline Rawley