I have grave concerns about Ms. Deena Dean’s recent Soapbox rebuttal to Mr. Neil Samuel’s Soapbox editorial about the Danaher voting machine system purchased by the Bucks County commissioners.  Her claims of correcting his “multiple inaccuracies” with her own “plain and accurate statements of fact” do nothing of the sort, and cannot be the last word on this subject in this newspaper.  Instead, we get more disinformation, seemingly employed to mislead citizens about the very serious consequences of this touchscreen system purchase.  Consider their desperate logic that high voter turnout this past, extremely important midterm election signified that citizens had great confidence in the new system.  Most citizens didn’t even realize we had a new system until they got to the polls!

The claim that this was the most accurate and cost-effective system available is simply false, and I cannot let this go unchallenged.  Just because the county officials’ talking points are constantly repeated does NOT make them true. They are merely their opinions, since providing concrete proof to back them up seems very problematic. Citizens get their red herring arguments, and are told to accept their decision because the commissioners are satisfied.

Mr. Samuels clearly explained valid reasons for his dismay about the lack of a voter-verifiable paper ballot (VVPB) component in this new system, and why having it is crucial.  County officials, aware that voters realize on some level that having a “paper component” in the system is important, continually tout this feature in the Danahers; they just gloss over the fact that it’s not voter-verifiable.   They fail to explain that the software-generated information is printed on paper inside the machine, unseen by the voter, who has no proof his intent was accurately recorded.  Officials reassure us that there is a 6-way, crosscheck of all the tabulating, so the vote tallies at the end are accurate. To have software crosscheck itself is not reassuring, and certainly is not usable for a meaningful (as opposed to the inadequate minimum suggested by state decree) audit or recount, as Mr. Samuels noted.

The heart of the entire argument against this system is this: Without a software-independent, voter-verifiable hard copy of the vote, it is impossible to make any accuracy claims about a system. Numerous computer experts have testified and many studies by prestigious groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Johns Hopkins, and Princeton University all stand behind this statement. 

Ms. Dean’s insistence that their chosen system was also the most cost-efficient is very suspicious.  All comparison studies made around the country between touchscreen and voter-verifiable paper ballot systems have shown touchscreen ones to be far more costly, especially when projected long term.  We’re waiting for the detailed cost breakdown used to make their decision, to determine if their cost-efficiency claims are justified. Factors may have been missed or poorly understood that could greatly impact the true financial cost, and could also serve to bolster the argument that throwing out this new system and investing in one that can provably count our votes (the whole point of having an election system!) may still be the most cost-effective course of action.  Entire states and municipalities have done this very thing, replacing millions of dollars worth of touchscreen systems with optical scan systems, still coming out ahead financially while gaining provably accurate election results. The commissioners’, unfortunately preventable, expensive mistake may still be salvageable.

Ms. Dean falsely states the commissioners had no government-certified voter-verifiable paper ballot system available to choose from.  Implying that they will comply with future VVPB requirements, but only if the government pays for printer add-ons, is alarming on several levels.  The solution of attaching printers to touchscreens has proven very costly, unreliable and, in Danaher’s case, unknown (there have been none used in any election). Purchasing reconditioned voting machines certainly did not prove they “weighed educated citizens’ concerns.”  We wanted no touchscreens, new or used. Consider the fact that there are municipalities around the country that are trying to get rid of the Danahers—auctioning them off for as little as $1 each!

Dismissing reports of hundreds of Danaher machine malfunctions, breakdowns, and voter confusion in surrounding counties with the retort that all problems were “human error,” the commissioners instead proudly point to the alleged accuracy (impossible to claim or prove) and trouble-free (false) elections held in these Pennsylvania counties.  Ignoring warnings and advice from voting system experts and educated activists, the commissioners seemed determined to pick and choose data to arrive at a predetermined decision to lead Bucks County down the same unnecessary path.  A cursory study of their Work Group Assessment (found at www.CoalitionForVotingIntegrity.org) bears this out.

Citizens should be very troubled by the shaky foundation these commissioners have built their case on.  Close scrutiny and questioning their decisions results in dissembling political-speak or misleading non-answers.  This issue is too important to just believe their oft-repeated mantra of “we met the criteria of accuracy, cost-efficiency and user-friendliness.”  Meeting the accuracy criteria is an abject failure, the second is extremely doubtful.  When backed into a corner to prove these two criteria, officials then counter with their biggest selling point, “The voters loved voting on these easy-to-use machines!” as if that now ends the entire debate.  Ease-of-use criteria isn’t important if all others are moot; we’ll give them the last one, though much simpler VVPB systems are just as easy or easier to use for most citizens.

We all need to work to rectify the situation to preserve the integrity of our elections. As officials working for Bucks County’s citizens, the commissioners need to fully understand their error, and take the steps to fix it.  This isn’t just alarmist information from pesky voting activists—it should be everyone’s wake-up call to realize that if the power of our votes is gone, we will no longer be living in a democracy. It will be impossible to hold anyone in government accountable for anything. Think long and hard about that.  Is it already happening?