DRE voting machines costly to use - pass this on to other activists

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Upon the recommendation of the Sarasota County supervisor of elections, the County Commission spent $4.7 million for direct-recording electronic voting machines in November 2001. The DREs were supposed to be less expensive to use than other machines...

Sarasota County's average annual expenses for 1999- 2001 were $1.8 million and, for 2002-2004, $2.8 million.

Manatee County's adjusted average annual expenses for 1999-2001 were $1.3 million and, for 2002-2004, $1.7 million.

It is obvious from the data that there was an increase of a million dollars per year in average annual expenses of the Sarasota County elections office in changing from punch cards to the DREs. Also, it has cost Sarasota County, on average, an extra $1.2 million each year to maintain and operate the DREs vs. Manatee County's adjusted average annual cost for using optical scanners.

Clearly, using DREs is significantly more expensive than using the punch cards we had before 2002 or optical scanners. There would have been real savings if the Sarasota County Commission had discarded the DREs in April 2004 and spent $600,000 to buy optical scanners, as a citizens' group had suggested to the commissioners. The supervisor of elections said that paper ballots were expensive. Manatee bought its paper ballots for 20 cents each. For 100,000 voters, this amounts to $20,000, a trivial sum compared with the above-mentioned $1.2 million.

Rosemarie F. Myerson

Charles Edwards

Both writers reside on Longboat Key.
(http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050225/OPINION/502250391/1029)

or
http://tinyurl.com/4tlhc

[Enquiringkitty]

1. Optical scanners would be a good solution to think about.

Counts them electronically and you still have paper ballots as a back up or confirmation.

[gristy]

2. It certainly shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict this

outcome back in 2001. Foolish people and technology - they must be kept apart at all costs. Imagine mentally-challenged folks and bright shiny things with lights. Oooooooh! Neato!

[tommcintyre]

3. Important Information! Thanks

I posted this earlier this month:

NEED HELP: Has anyone done a cost comparison: DRE w/VVPAT vs optical scan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=323056

It was a request from the head of the group that is spearheading the election reform bills here in Hawaii. I will forward them the information.

This type of information is very important for the state congressional finance committees for example.

[marions ghost]

4. Other references for DRE greater expense

1. The fact that DREs are much more expensive is also corroborated in the recent report, "MYTHBREAKERS--Facts About Electronic Elections": http://www.votersunite.org/MB2.pdf
found at this website: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5535


2. See also www.ncvoter.net the following breakdown under "Solutions for NC Election Systems"--
Sample precinct: OPTI-SCAN $10+K VS. DRES $22+K

"Optical Scanners are more accurate, handle many times more votes, and are far less expensive per precinct."


COST PER PRECINCT each

Optical Scan Precinct (with 1 ballot marking device or DRE)
Estimated cost of 5-voting booth polling place of optical scanners = $6250 in equipment
Estimated cost of 1 DRE or ballot marking device* = $4,500.
Total cost at that precinct would be $10,750.
VS
New DRE Precinct (touchscreen or dial machine) with Voter Verified Paper Ballot
Estimated cost of 5-voting booth polling place of DREs (with VVPAT) @$4,500 ea = $22,500
--------------------------
This does not seem to include ongoing costs of usage and maintenance, which would show a large difference also. Note that this breakdown does allow for one disabled access DRE in the Optical Scan precinct.

[tommcintyre]

8. Thanks for the additional sources

hedda_foil gave me the Mythbreakers one in the link I posted above; but the ncvoter link is a new one for me.

[BeFree]

5. Good ol' election stupidvisors, eh?

Well, the truth be told, the fancy DRE machines are the Edsels of our day.

Someone else tell the youngsters what an Edsel is, ok?

I had a chuckle when reading this story, but then I thought, gawd durnit, this is how the election was stolen and now we have to live with the squatters for ANOTHER four years.

[Carolab]

6. Again, it's NOT ABOUT THE COST or the CONVENIENCE.

Those are EXCUSES to steal the vote.

[tommcintyre]

7. Totally agree, " it's NOT ABOUT THE COST or the CONVENIENCE". But...

The realities are that is where we can win or lose the "war". In Hawaii, for example, the obstacles are bureaucratic, not partisan. The elections officials are pushing for: one system, convenience/efficiency AND low cost. They have been pushing for DREs (WITHOUT VVPB) claiming they will satisfy all the previous requirements. Further, they claim the cost of adding printers, and the ongoing cost of paper are both expensive and unnecessary. Of course the main argument presented in the bills is the lack of verifiability/security, etc. But even if we win (get VVPB, etc.), and we are so far, this argument doesn't eliminate the purchase of DREs. However, clearly showing that DREs are more expensive in the long run, can get both VVPB AND OPscan.

More info: Long term cost is a major concern in making a purchasing decision. HAVA is giving $20 for each $1 the state spends now. (In Hawaii, for example, a $350k investment will yield $7 million!) The states cannot pass up this windfall. Even a small state like ours would routinely spend a couple million in the next few years upgrading/replacing old equipment. However, what HAVA will not pay for is the ongoing expenses (like paper for ballots). Since resources are so limited for elections, it is very helpful to be able to show that operating DREs is actually more expensive. In fact, the cost factor can (most likely will) be used to try to defeat the bill. So evidence like this is essential.

[berniew1]

9. DREs also unreliable, insecure, lots of undervotes and phantom votes, glit

glitches,etc.

http://www.votersunite.org mythbreakers, messups, phantom votes, etc.

summary of EIRS reports
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

[berniew1]

10. Answer to election reform is obvious and pretty easy- citizen initiative

Those in contol like things the way they are, and are virtually impossible for the "public" to influence other than by vote.

But the majority of the public support real election reform, and even more will when the magnitude of the fraud and manipulation in the 2004 election is publicized. (its not a matter of opinion)

Its not that hard to organize and get an initiative measure on the ballot in most states, and thats exactly what needs to be done. Have forums to decide what should be included in the election reform package, and organize drives in as many states as possible to get the election reform package on the ballot.

See action plan in:
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

[marions ghost]

11. another website

which has some cost comparisons between optiscan and DREs:

http://www.nyvv.org/doc/CostComparisons.pdf

ALSO: http://www.nyvv.org/doc/AdvantagesPaperBallots.pdf

[tommcintyre]

12. Thanks once again. I will forward all of this info.n/t

[Wilms]

13. kick n/t

[tommcintyre]

14. One last kick for any other info available?

It is really nice to have multiple sources of information on this important aspect of the issue.