Now that the PA Dept of State has directed counties to implement new voting systems with paper records, and federal funding is available, counties have the challenge of choosing secure, verifiable, reliable voting machines to ensure that citizens have faith in our elections.\u00a0 Citizens should urge elected officials to choose optical scanners that count voter-marked paper ballots.\u00a0 While it may seem old fashioned in a high-tech world, election integrity experts recommend this voting system as the most effective way to achieve security, accuracy, verifiability, accessibility, and resiliency.\u00a0\u00a0Below are several reasons that these systems are best.<\/p>\n
Voter-marked paper ballots put as little technology between the voter and their vote as possible, preventing the possibility of errors due to machine malfunction, mis-calibration, or hacking.\u00a0 Paper ballots are reliable.\u00a0 Even if power is lost and machines fail, voters can still vote.\u00a0 By contrast, machines in York and Dauphin counties failed in the 2018 primaries, and some voters left the polling place without voting.\u00a0 Paper ballots are intuitive and easy to use, in contrast to electronic voting machines which may have confusing interfaces for casting write-in votes or “no votes”.\u00a0 Simple solutions are best, because some voters are not technology savvy.\u00a0 For example, some voters leave the booth before pressing the button to enter the votes on the machines.\u00a0 Most importantly, paper ballots provide a paper record that can be recounted in close elections and audited to detect machine problems.<\/p>\n
There are many benefits to optical scanner machines (“opscans”), which would be used to quickly count the hand-marked paper ballots and tally election results.\u00a0 Scanners can retain digital images of the paper ballots to facilitate recounts, audits, and adjudication.\u00a0 Scanners can also be used to count absentee and provisional ballots.\u00a0 Opscans would reduce purchasing costs for new machines, because polling places could purchase just one optical scanner and one accessible ballot-marking device per precinct, as compared to precincts which now require several voting machines each.\u00a0 Opscans could improve voter trust in elections, because there is a paper ballot record of each vote, and routine post-election audits of paper ballots will detect errors.<\/p>\n
Voter-marked paper ballots are the best system for accuracy of voter intent, because the votes are verified by the voter as they are written down.\u00a0 Optical scanners offer helpful features such as alerting voters to problems like over-votes on their paper ballots.\u00a0 In comparison, machine-marked ballots have verification weaknesses.\u00a0 Studies have shown that when voters’ ballots are marked by machines, voters do not carefully review and verify the paper receipts printed by the machines.\u00a0 Machine-marked ballots also often use barcoded votes, which a voter cannot read or verify.\u00a0 Voter-marked ballots are preferable, because they reduce the chances of both human and computer error.<\/p>\n
Machine-marked ballots can cause logjams when voters take a long time deciding how to mark their ballots on the machines.\u00a0 By contrast, optical scanner paper ballot systems can shorten lines while requiring fewer machines, because many voters can fill out their paper ballots at the same time without the use of a machine.\u00a0 When a voter finishes marking a paper ballot, it only takes a few seconds to feed it into the scanner, which then deposits the ballot into a locked box for security.\u00a0 If a precinct has long lines, poll workers could easily set up more privacy cubbies for more voters to mark paper ballots at the same time.\u00a0 By contrast, if a precinct uses only machine-marked ballots, poll workers could not add more voting machines to shorten the waiting lines.\u00a0 A further benefit of optical scanner paper ballot systems is that they require fewer machines per precinct, which means fewer taxpayer dollars spent on purchasing machines, and less time and energy spent on machine maintenance, calibration, testing, and delivery.<\/p>\n
Currently, no single voting machine model exists which can meet all accessibility needs.\u00a0 Universal accessibility requires that options be offered to enable accessibility for people with various types of disabilities.\u00a0 Ballot-marking devices (BMDs) are the most accessible voting method for voters with vision loss or certain mobility challenges.\u00a0 Hand-marked paper ballots are the most accessible voting method for voters with screen sensitivities due to concussions or other conditions, as well as voters with certain mobility challenges.\u00a0 BMDs make foreign language accessibility easier, while hand-marked paper ballots are more accessible for Amish voters who may not use electricity.\u00a0 Some elderly voters may prefer BMDs for vision reasons, while other elderly voters may prefer the simplicity of paper and pen.\u00a0 To achieve universal accessibility, more than one type of voting system is needed per precinct.<\/p>\n
Some vendors are pushing BMDs for every voter in order to sell more machines, but the sole use of BMDs would prevent universal accessibility and increase the costs of machine purchasing, maintenance, calibration, testing, and staffing due to a larger number of machines.\u00a0 Counties should tell vendors that they want to test both the optical scanner and the accessible BMD that is compatible with the optical scanner.\u00a0 Ideally,\u00a0hand-marked paper ballots and BMD-marked paper ballots should look the same to protect ballot secrecy.<\/p>\n
To provide universal accessibility and ensure that all voters can vote privately and independently, counties should:<\/p>\n