State to re-examine voting system
J.D. Prose, Beaver County Times Staff
01/31/2005
 
BEAVER - While thousands of Beaver County voters cast ballots in the November election, more than 4,500 didn't vote in the presidential race, according to results provided by the county.

A review of last year's presidential voting results for the county has shown that there were 4,551 fewer votes tabulated for president than total ballots cast.

County officials said the disparity, known as the undervote, could be a reflection of unhappiness over presidential choices, so people didn't vote for any candidate, or lingering confusion with the county's electronic touch-screen voting machines, which have been used since November 1998.

Although the undervote was down from the 2000 election, in which 5,313 county voters were reported to have not cast ballots for president, it is still far greater than the 820 undervote for the 1996 race, which was the last presidential election in the county tabulated with paper ballots.

The county last used paper ballots in the 1998 primary.

The undervote figures could take on added significance next month, when the state re-examines the UniLect Patriot electronic voting system, which is used in Beaver County as well as Mercer and Greene counties.

Dorene Mandity, director of Beaver County's elections bureau, attributed the latest undervote figures to voter confusion with touch screens, and ambivalence in many races, especially those featuring only one candidate.

Some voters might be embarrassed to ask for help or not even realize they need assistance, Mandity said.

Confusion, especially among the elderly, is a small factor for the increased undervote, said Commissioners Chairman Dan Donatella. "Don't sell the seniors short, they know what they're doing," he said.

Many voters, Mandity said, simply don't bother voting if they don't like any candidates in a race or know a candidate is guaranteed election. "That's their right and privilege," Mandity said.

Commissioner Joe Spanik, chairman of the county's board of elections, agreed. "It's more apathy, to me, than anything else," he said.

Mandity said the undervote for other races in the last election indicates widespread voter apathy. The undervote was 8,000 for the attorney general's race and nearly 13,000 for the state Senate's 47th District race in which state Sen. Gerald LaValle, D-47, Rochester Township, ran unopposed.

"It's more than just the presidential race," Mandity said, "but nobody cares about that."

Mandity also said many voters still choose straight-party tickets. With the touch screens, though, those races are all highlighted on a final summary screen.

She thinks that some of those voters are touching those highlighted names, which des those votes and leads to their not being counted.

Donatella said the undervote was smaller with paper ballots because voters mistakenly thought they had to cast a vote in every race for their ballot to count.

Under the county's $1.2 million electronic system, he said, voters can pick and choose candidates without worrying about their entire ballot.

Donatella said paper ballots were easy to count but much more vulnerable to fraud and manipulation than the electronic system, which stores voting results in secure information packs.

Re-examining the system

Brian McDonald, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections, said the re-examination of the UniLect Patriot electronic voting system will occur on Feb. 15 in Harrisburg.

Michael Shamos, a professor in Carnegie Mellon University's School of Computer Science and co-director of the school's Institute for eCommerce, will assist the state in the review, McDonald said.

According to the Mercer elections office Web site, there were 51,162 votes cast on Election Day but only 47,707 votes for president, an undervote of 3,455.

There were 752 fewer votes for president than the 16,307 total votes cast in Greene County.

As for the increase in undervotes with the jump from paper to electronic balloting, McDonald said only that state officials might discuss the issue with Beaver County authorities.

He went on to say that more Pennsylvania residents than ever registered to vote last year. Instructional videos and printed guidelines on every type of voting machine used in the state are available from the state, McDonald said.

Mandity, however, was surprised to learn from newspaper accounts that the Patriot system will be reviewed by the state. She said there were no problems reported with the system in November's election.

"We stand behind our equipment," she said. "We believe it works accurately and counts accurately."

McDonald acknowledged that there were no reports of trouble with Beaver or Greene's touch-screen voting machines, but said the review was being conducted for two reasons.

First, Beaver, Mercer and Greene counties use the Patriot system and, according to The Herald newspaper in Sharon, there were widespread problems with Mercer's election in November.

In Mercer, officials are investigating various complaints involving unregistered votes, ballots missing candidates' names and broken machines.

The Mercer County elections chief, James Bennington, submitted his resignation shortly after the election.

Bennington admitted to incorrectly programming the computers for the voting system, said Michael P. DeForest, Mercer County's acting elections director. "It's my belief that the error that was caused here in Mercer County was human error," DeForest said.

"Regardless of your system, it's always possible that you're going to have human error," said Frances Pratt, Greene County's director of registration and elections.

DeForest said Mercer County has created an independent committee to investigate the Election Day problems and should issue a report in early February.

The second reason for the state review, McDonald said, is that 19 Beaver County residents submitted a petition in October and paid a $450 fee that obligates the state to re-examine the Patriot system.

"It's just a complete review so we can make sure (problems) don't happen again," he said.

Protesting the system

Sheila Green, a New Sewickley Township resident, has spent months warning officials about potential problems with the county's voting system, and she also spearheaded the petition drive.

Green's legal effort to have the county's system shelved was rejected in late October by Beaver County Judge John McBride. She contradicted Mandity and said there were many problems in the November election, including malfunctioning machines in a North Sewickley Township polling place.

"Anybody who is claiming there were not problems in Beaver County isn't being truthful," Green said.

Mandity acknowledged that the voting machines in North Sewickley were down for about an hour early on Election Day, but said emergency ballots were properly used and there were no additional problems.

Although Mercer was the only county of the three to report trouble, media reports around the state in recent weeks have portrayed all three of the counties as victims of widespread problems.

That has annoyed Mandity and Pratt. "What happened in Mercer did not happen in Beaver County," Mandity said.

Pratt said she was surprised to hear that her county was being described as one that had election foul-ups. "I was very curious as to where this information came from," she said.

Mandity and Pratt have called McDonald to complain about the way their counties' elections have been portrayed in the media. Mandity said she runs several tests to ensure the accuracy of the county's system.

Green, however, questioned Mandity's experience with computers and reliance on UniLect for guidance.

Mandity said she was trained by UniLect in 1998 and frequently consults with the company when issues arise. "They're available to me anytime," she said.

McDonald said the system re-examination could highlight areas such as training or maintenance in which Mercer could emulate Beaver and Greene counties. He said officials want to finish the review before the May 17 primary.

State officials, McDonald said, will merely decide whether the Patriot system meets the state's criteria for use. Counties are not told which system to use, McDonald said, only which have been approved by the state.

Green said she doesn't think an impartial review is possible and expects the companies that manufacture voting machines to have an easy time with the state.

"They will find no problems," she said. "It's going to be farcical. It's just going to be this thing done for show."

So why force a re-examination of the system? To protest the use of the electronic voting machines and ensure government officials are aware of complaints, Green said.

"The manually counted paper ballot is more accurate," she said.