Touchscreen Voting Increases Election Costs in NC (and elsewhere)

[Wilms]

Touchscreen Voting Increases Election Costs in North Carolina
A Comparison of Total Annual Expenditures for TouchScreens and Optical Scanners

By North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting

January 25, 2006

Not only have computer scientists advise the North Carolina Legislature that touch screen voting machines are less reliable and accurate than optical scan equipment, we find that they are more costly to own and operate. Clearly, this is no way to run an election.

Opponents to voter verified paper ballots often cited costs of printing paper ballots as an excuse for using paperless all electronic voting machines. They also used the argument that optical scan ballots take up more space, therefore increasing costs. We were intrigued, and set out to seek the truth.

The NC Coalition for Verified Voting, in 2005 - completed a study of annual expenditures of the election departments of four North Carolina counties. We found that the cost of using touch screen voting or direct record machines in Guilford and Mecklenburg county was about 30-40% higher than the cost of using optical scan equipment in Wake and Durham county. This means that not only are touch screens more expensive to acquire, they are also more expensive to operate year after year.

One factor that may explain why having touch screens cost so much more than optical scanners is because the county has to own and maintain so many more machines. We estimate that one optical scanner can count handle six voter’s votes a minute (or 360 per hour) as they are cast but because it takes a voter at least three minutes to vote with touch screens, it would take 20 touch screens to perform per hour as well as optical scanners. Additionally, touch screen machines use thermal paper ballots - both require special handling and climate controlled storage. Justin Moore, of Duke University Computer Science Department found that counties using touch screen machines required 20% more poll workers, and about 10% more precincts.

A true cost comparison of voting machines cannot focus just on ballot printing costs. All of the Boards of Elections costs must be considered. This includes staff salaries, staff benefits, training expenditures, equipment programming, maintenance, storage, advertising, printing costs, postage and storage.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=835&Itemid=113

[Stevepol]

1. They don't even take into account the cost of replacement.

And this is probably the greatest cost over time. The Diebold touchscreens, according to those who know, is apparently more or less a piece of junk. At present, since they've just been put into service in most places, that cost isn't clear. In 5 years, when they start needing replacement, you'll have the real costs I think.

[Boredtodeath]

2. Here's a hint

By CARLOS CAMPOS, JAMES SALZER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/21/05

"Stephens' legislation would create a pilot project for paper receipts
in three counties: Cobb, Columbia (near Augusta) and Cox's native
Decatur (in South Georgia). The pilot would cost about $1 million and
would be in place for the 2006 elections, Stephens said at a news
conference. If that is successful, Stephens would like to see paper
receipts statewide for the 2008 presidential election."

[Wilms]

3. I'm hoping the ones that bought DRE's will learn to not ever do it again.