http://timesunion

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=525570&category=OPINION&BCCode=&newsdate=10/15/2006

Editorial

Make every vote count

Optical scan machines are preferable to expensive touch-screen systems

October 15, 2006

New York was the last state in the nation to comply with the federal law requiring states to upgrade their voting systems. But there was a silver lining nonetheless: New York could learn from the mistakes of other states that had rushed to acquire new systems.

Or not. More and more it appears that New York might make a big mistake by purchasing expensive touch screen machines over simpler, less costly and more reliable optical scanning systems.

Much of the blame can be placed on the Legislature, which left it to the counties to decide which systems to buy. But the counties can only purchase machines that have been certified by the state Board of Elections, and that process has been troubling. For one thing, manufacturers of the more expensive touch screen machines have been lobbying heavily to have their systems certified, while giving optical scanners short shrift. The Sierra Club wants manufacturers of both systems to be required to submit an optical scanning system for certification along with their touch screen product.

Optical scanners work the way Lotto ticket outlets do. That is, voters mark their choices on a paper ballot that is scanned into the system and saved if a recount is needed. By contrast, touch-screen machines perform much as ATMs do. But there are more risks associated with these machines than optical scanners. For example, in 2002, Miami's Dade County touch-screen system was riddled with coding errors and voting records in the gubernatorial primary that year were destroyed by computer crashes. Granted, New York learned something from that experience by requiring a verifiable paper trail, but the potential for coding glitches, or sabotage, remains.

The League of Women Voters is concerned about the secrecy surrounding the verification process, largely because manufacturers are withholding so much information on the grounds of proprietary interests. And the prospect of having counties turn to manufacturers to fix glitches, or revise or replace codes, is far from reassuring. Any changes should be subject to an independent review by a panel of computer experts.