Moore: Lincoln's ballots suit him just fine
By Murvale H. Moore Jr. Lincoln, MA Journal
Wednesday, September 22, 2004I am a supporter of the philosophy, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." When I voted in the September state primary election I was reminded of nationwide controversy over what kind of ballot system should be adopted, nationally, for our "great democracy." It seems to me the, "Darken the ovals" paper ballot used in Lincoln comes about as close to ideal as we mortals can get. Why are we arguing over whether to standardize on a more complicated, more expensive machine whose accuracy is less easily verified (translated: more subject to fraud)? Could it be related to the fact that the leading manufacturer of touch screen voting machines is a large contributor to politicians' election campaigns?

     Let me list the features which I believe make the optical ballot reader, used in Lincoln, a "no contest," choice for nationwide standardization.

     1. Simplicity: Moderate reading ability and the ability to color within boundary lines are needed. These skill levels are normally reached early in elementary school. Certain, relatively few, individuals may have physical or mental handicaps, which limit their ability to complete these (or any other) ballots without assistance.

     2. Paper ballot: The system provides a voter-prepared, permanent paper record of each ballot cast for use if a recount is needed. A touch screen voting machine could produce a paper ballot, but its accuracy could only be verified if each voter reviewed the print out.

     3. Economy: Fewer, relatively complex electronic devices, are required to accommodate a given number of voters. The vote counter can process ballots as fast as voters can them into the input slot. On the other hand, a touch screen machine is likely to be tied up for minutes by each voter (on the average).

     4. Fraud prevention: Validation of the accuracy of the count of the optical ballot reader is simple, quick and reliable. It could be accomplished as a standard part of each election vote count by removing the ballots, shuffling their order and putting them through the machine again. If the total is the same, the machine is free of any systematic bias.

     There may be other voting systems that are as attractive as the optical ballot reader, but I am not aware of them. Certainly, the system I have been hearing discussed so hotly (touch screen) can't hold a candle to it.

     Another problem, which needs rectification, pertains to fraudulent voter registration, including disenfranchising legitimate voters, multiple registration of individuals, registration of fictitious persons, of pets etc. In addition there is lax enforcement of the rules which are intended to prevent fraudulent use of absentee ballots. Since these infractions are attributable to the actions of individuals, their impact on the outcome of an election tends to be random from one location to another. Therefore, the effect on election outcome should be less than that from voting machine fraud, which is likely to be organized or coordinated.

     Voters would also benefit from the adoption of preference voting, also called "instant runoff election." This type of balloting is useful when there are more than two candidates running for the same office. It permits a voter to express preference for a "dark horse" (third party) candidate and still have his vote counted in determining which major party candidate wins. (It would prevent, for example, a vote for Nader stealing one from Kerry or Bush.)

     The importance of all of the above issues pales, however, in comparison to that of curbing the influence of special interest money in our elections and, hence, our government. Democratic (tax payer) funding of elections is essential to electing a democratic government. You get what you pay for!