Voters try out computerized voting systems, opinions mixed

Thursday, October 06, 2005
By Brian David, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In the end, Mimi Miller did not rank the five computerized voting systems displayed at the Beaver County Courthouse on Tuesday.

As a voter, she liked the WINVote system by Advanced Voting Solutions, a model of simplicity with screens and buttons that have and need no explanation.

As an inspector of elections, she liked Unisys' AccuPoll system, which gives voters cards to start the machines and produces full-size paper ballots.

But WINVote fails where AccuPoll succeeds, requiring a poll worker to set up the machine for each voter. And AccuPoll fails where WINVote succeeds, with a confusing button system and instruction screens that could baffle voters who aren't computer-savvy.

"We have a lot of older voters," Mrs. Miller said. "I can see myself spending a lot of time explaining things."

Three other systems showed their strengths and weaknesses to a steady stream of voters, most of whom, unlike Mrs. Miller, filled in cards giving their preferences. Those opinions will be weighed as the county commissioners choose a replacement for their Unilect Patriot system, which they bought in 1998 and which was decertified by the state in the spring.

Unilect was on hand with its revised system, which has a larger color screen, among other tweaks. It programs cards for voters to put in the machines, like AccuPoll, is a bit simpler in its instructions and has the advantage of familiarity.

On the downside, its screen is on the touchy side and a voter touching the wrong thing can end up confused, facing an unannounced write-in screen, for instance. And there's the issue that Unilect has been decertified once.

Diebold offered a system similar to Unilect's, with cards for voters and receipt-style paper printouts for voters to review through a plastic screen. Its screens were a bit more colorful and its instructions perhaps a bit easier to follow.

Elections Systems and Solutions offered a system that, like WINVote, has to be activated by a poll worker. Left to her own devices Mrs. Miller stared at the instruction screen for a good 30 seconds before figuring out to hit the "View Ballot Now" button to start voting.

On the other hand, it featured a separate "vote" button set into the frame above the screen, which blinked red when the ballot was filled out, something many voters probably would find helpful.

The decision will be made on factors beyond the preferences of those who showed up to try the machines. State certification is an absolute. The county could not and will not buy a system the state has not approved, and, so far, that is true only of AccuPoll, though approval of the others is pending.

But price is another factor, and AccuPoll is expected to be the most expensive, though not by a wide margin. Unilect would probably be the cheapest, because the county is likely to be able to reuse much of its existing equipment.

Still, the county was glad to have voters involved.

"The turnout was great," Elections Director Dorene Mandity said. "It was steady all day."

She said she especially was glad to see a number of poll workers come, so they'd be familiar with the machines and the options.

Mrs. Mandity was also glad to see a number of blind voters testing the equipment. Handicap accessibility is a coming requirement under federal law, and is something addressed by all the systems.

Their reports were not necessarily encouraging, however.

"The one with the phone you hold, you're supposed to push five to confirm and I kept pushing six to advance," said Don Nye, of New Sewickley. He said he preferred a machine he had used in Pittsburgh which had a rotary dial like an old telephone.

"The machine we had didn't work too well," said his wife Mary Nye.

Paula Haney, of Rochester, said that, while the systems are a help, "come November, I'll still probably send in my absentee ballot."

That might be her only choice in November. The county will use paper ballots for the general election, as it did for the May primary. The hope now is to have a system bought and in place by spring.

The state reimbursed the county for the costs of switching to paper ballots in the primary, though it will not pay $24,000 the county accrued in legal fees because of a recount in the race for Common Pleas judge. The state announced recently it would also pay the extra costs in the general election.

The county is eligible for $8,000 per precinct in federal funding to provide voting options for the handicapped, up from $3,000 per precinct it would have gotten if it had a functional computerized system.

If the county commissioners listen to Fran Yanosich, they will go with the WINVote system.

"I like things that are simple," said Mrs. Yanosich, of Industry. "We have a lot of elderly voters, and I know several who are afraid to use the machines."

If the county commissioners listen to her husband, Nicholas Yanosich, however, they will go back to Unilect. "I've used it in the past, and it always functioned well for me," he said.