“Members of the Coalition for Voting Integrity don’t like the machine Bucks is using.  It’s made by the Danaher company, and its machines are used around the country.    

     "Problems with the machines have occurred, though.  For example, in Knox County, in 2001, election officials were unable to retrieve data from one machine or have the machine print out the results.

     "But that was five years ago.  Technology is always improving....

     “Bucks officials are confident the machines will live up to their expectations and that they have a good track record in nearby counties.”

These statements made in your column display a large unfamiliarity with the real history of the Danaher machines and their actual track records in other municipalities, and perhaps are based on vendor or commissioner-supplied information.  One can check websites that keep track of election problems for the true story (again, can be accessed via our website, among others).

In the 2004 election, Philadelphia (which uses the Danahers exclusively) reported nearly 400 machine failures. That doesn’t even include the human error problems with these machines, which could reflect on machine design flaws.  After the grave problems with under votes on Danahers and other electronic machine mishaps in New Mexico, the governor threw out all the DREs and replaced them statewide with optical scan machines.

By implying that the Danaher system had one problem worth mentioning five years ago, and that everyone else using this system has been problem-free, you are perpetuating a huge myth, one that the commissioners seem intent on pushing to validate their decision.

The majority opinion among computer experts is that computer technology, as embodied in non-voter-verifiable, paperless voting systems, is not appropriate to conduct entire elections on.  While technology can speed up some election steps, they state it is not reliable enough at this time (and possibly never will be) to conduct our elections on exclusively. We are making a process that should be simple (counting our votes reliably) needlessly complex with unnecessary technology. For us to rely on computer results that cannot be backed up independently is foolish, which should be apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity with computers crashing or viruses changing results.

So “technology is always improving” is not a valid argument right now.  And to apply it to the Danahers is even more problematic, since the models we have now are essentially unchanged since their initial design years ago. Also, after contracting to get all new machines, the commissioners are now purchasing “refurbished” ones! 

Looking ahead to the inevitable day that voter-verifiable paper records are required in Pennsylvania (37 states already have legislation for this), the “solution” to make the Danaher system compliant will be very expensive and very problematic.  To date, Danaher has no operating attachable printer that has been used in a real election.  The alleged cost for this future printer, according to the commissioners, will be around $2400 each (now multiply by over 700 machines!). Printers attached to DREs are notoriously prone to extra problems, like jamming.  So all this “technology” we are getting with our new voting system to help us looks instead like a needlessly complex problem that could be averted using a much simpler system that inherently produces voter-verifiable paper records easily and with no extra cost.  

     “I suppose accuracy is a matter of trusting the technology you’re using.  Errors have occurred with mechanical machines, and errors have occurred with hand-counted paper ballots.

     "Probably nothing is completely error-free, but it’s the responsibility of the election board and the judges of elections to provide the oversight necessary to detect such errors.”

These sentences are perhaps the most chilling.  Accuracy is NOT a matter of trust, in any way, shape or form.  Accuracy can only be reasonably assured by having a physical crosscheck of any result, especially important when dealing with the non-transparent process of software tabulations inside a computer!

This is the heart of our arguments, and the basis of our passionate pleas for a voting system that we can verify to count our votes correctly.  We resent and deplore the fact that the commissioners have essentially taken away our rights and confidence that our votes will actually count.  If they and you and anyone else want to be foolish enough to trust your vote, your voice in our democracy, in something that every computer scientist and elementary school kid know is basically untrustworthy, then you all have that right, I suppose.  But it is NOT their right to demand that WE trust any computer.

You seem to think that it will be up to the election boards and judges to guarantee that everything will go smoothly and error-free on Election Day.  Here is the hard truth:  Our elections are not transparent anymore.  The casting, tabulations and vote-counting are happening inside the computers, where no one can see what is happening.  It is impossible, even for computer experts, to watch or catch many errors that occur. Computer software errors, viruses that can change results without leaving any trace of their activity, human errors in using voting machines, memory chips that can be lost or switched or misprogrammed---any or all of these things are outside the view and expertise of the poll workers and officials, and to rely on them to safeguard your vote is the height of folly.

I am very perplexed by the commissioners’ decision and insistence on going ahead with a voting system that is so obviously inferior and does not serve the needs of the citizens of Bucks County.  They defy all logic, try to defend their choice with lame arguments that are easily refuted with facts, and seem to have thrown all common sense out the window.  It has turned into a very sad and frightening situation, in which the decision of a very few can affect so many so negatively, especially when their decision has no basis in reality. 

I am positive we will hear of “glitches” occurring on November 7.  Officials will use that word, as well as “human-error,” to cover all manner of election mishaps, ranging from small errors to huge problems, in an effort to downplay any concerns about whatever transpires.  I am truly hoping that nothing goes wrong, as I cherish the idea that all our votes will count, and we will elect whomever the majority chooses. 

My real fear is not that there will be obvious problems.  My fear is that any real election-changing problem may go completely unnoticed or undetectable, a situation that could have been avoidable with a different voting system.

If you have any questions at all, or don’t understand something, or want clarification of any of my points, please don’t hesitate to contact me, Mr. Sessinger.  I am sure we all want the same thing, in the end; to know that the foundation of our democracy is never eroded because its cornerstone—the integrity of each citizen’s vote—is solid.  Thanks so much.

Sincerely,

Janis Hobbs-Pellechio

Doylestown, PA