Panel: Costliest vote machines are best

Even if the County Commission picks a cheaper touch-screen system, it will likely have to finance part of the cost.

By LISA GREENE

© St. Petersburg Times,
published October 3, 2001

It's not just the most expensive kind of voting machine they like best.

It's also the most expensive brand.

Last week, members of the Pinellas County Voting Evaluation Committee said that newfangled ouch-screen machines are a better choice for voters, even though they cost millions more than optical scanners.

On Tuesday, the same committee said that the most expensive touch screen, made by Sequoia Voting Systems, is also the best product.

But the difference is so close, committee members said, that county commissioners may pick the cheaper runner-up.

"They may decide that the citizens and the voters are not worth the extra $3-million," said County Judge Patrick Caddell, the committee chairman.

Sequoia's $15.5-million package narrowly outranked the $12.6-million package offered to Pinellas County by Election Systems & Software. Both were clear favorites over the other three companies trying to sell voting machines to Pinellas. They're also the only touch screens approved by the state elections office.

Pinellas is one of 41 Florida counties that must buy new voting machines because the state banned punch cards and other systems after last year's traumatic recounts.

County commissioners, who will make a final decision this month, already have clashed over voting costs. They originally set $15-million aside for new voting machines in next year's budget, but a 4-3 majority slashed that amount to $6.7-million.

So even if commissioners pick the cheaper touch-screen system, they will have to finance the rest of the cost -- unless they reject the committee's recommendations completely and choose optical scanners. Commissioners appointed the seven-member citizens committee to evaluate voting systems and recommend the best option for Pinellas voters.

The scanners, which cost about $3-million, read paper ballots marked by voters. On touch screens, voters touch their choices on a computer screen, like an ATM.

The committee rated the machines on a 100-point scale and came up with just a few points' difference -- 75.86 for Sequoia to 72.71 for ES&S -- when they looked at quality. When they came to the final factor, cost, committee members ran into trouble.

They planned to rate the companies' cost based on overall value, but county staff members told them they should consider only price. Because ES&S is cheaper, that narrowed the gap between the two by two points, with Sequoia finishing just 0.15 ahead of ES&S. Committee members said that rating didn't reflect their feelings.

"I feel like I got sandbagged at the last minute," Caddell said. "The point difference is small, but significant."

The proposal prices aren't necessarily the final numbers. Committee members said some items, such as carts to transport the units, were not included in the ES&S package. And county staff members expect to negotiate with whichever company commissioners choose.

Committee members plan to meet Friday to finalize a report, and hope to meet with commissioners to explain their views.

The biggest difference between the two systems comes down to the way they ensure citizens vote only once. Sequoia, a Oakland, Calif., firm, would have poll workers issue each voter a "smart card" that the voter would enter into the voting unit. Nebraska-based ES&S would have poll workers standing by to insert a cartridge into the unit for each voter.

The cartridges would be harder for poll workers to keep track of, and voters could wind up having to wait on poll workers helping other voters, committee members said.

Committee member Lois Crittenden, a longtime poll worker, said the cards would be familiar to voters because they are like hotel key cards or ATMs.

"It eliminates a poll worker forever going to a machine," she said. "It must be simple, not only for the voter, but also for the poll worker."

Why Sequoia?

Some reasons a Pinellas County committee prefers the touch-screen machine made by Sequoia Voting Systems over its close second choice, Election Systems & Software:

Easier on Election Day. Sequoia's "smart cards" would be operated by voters; ES&S's cartridges would have to be inserted by poll workers for each voter. Committee members think cards would be easier for poll workers and faster for voters.

More accessible. Larger space on screen to record votes easier for people with limited mobility; better audio voting system for blind voters.

More complete. More expensive, but included more equipment that Pinellas requested in its bid; committee members felt some bids left out elements to lower the price.

Fewer voter mistakes. Harder for voters to change votes accidentally by touching the screen in the wrong place.

Bigger screen. Sequoia has 15-inch color screen; ES&S has 12-inch color screen.

More flexible. Sequoia's ballot management software and other features were easier for committee members to understand and seemed easier to change for future needs.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright