Both machine, human needed to tally votes
By Toni Locy
What's the most accurate way to count votes in a tight election?
Is Texas Gov. George W. Bush right that it's with machines? Or is Vice
President Gore correct that it's with human hand counts?
Experts say that neither is exactly right. Nor exactly wrong. They say
counts and machines are both needed to do the job right.
Many legislatures have reached the same conclusion. Bush signed such a
process into law in Texas in 1997.
''Machine and hand counts are a good check and balance on each other,''
says Todd Urosevich, a vice president at Election Systems & Software Inc.
In close races, machines are only as good as the ballots they're reading.
''What you are looking at is that voters will not, cannot or just plain do not
follow instructions,'' says Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election
Center, a non-partisan, non-profit group in Houston that trains elections
Machines also are not foolproof. They can and do overlook flaws, such as
incompletely punched holes on ballots.
People aren't the perfect alternative either. They can read only so many
ballots without wearing down. That's why, Lewis says, the prayer of
election officials everywhere is: ''God, please let the winner win in a
Mechanical lever machines were first used in 1892. The punch-card-reading
machines made their debut in 1964. William Rouverol, the mechanical
engineer who built the prototype punch card reader, says the country went
to this system because it wanted faster results.
Machines also reduced the manpower needed to count the increasing
number of ballots cast by a growing country. By then, allegations were
prevalent that elections had been rigged and stolen by corrupt people doing
Converting to mechanized vote counting brought ''integrity'' to elections
the USA, says Urosevich, whose company makes punch-card-reading
machines and other voting systems. But the machines are only as good as
the ballots they are asked to read. Relying on people alone to do the
counting also can be problematic, especially when they are counting
hundreds of thousands of ballots.
''The mind gets tired, the eyes get tired, the body gets tired,'' Lewis says.
In a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 870 adults Sunday, the public
perceives machines as more accurate than humans, 58%-35%. The poll had
a margin of error of +/-- 4 percentage points.
Urosevich says machines that read punch cards are 99.9% accurate, and
maybe as much as 99.999% right.
In a close contest, that's not as good as it sounds. In Florida, where
votes were cast, machines with 99.9% accuracy could have mistakenly
rejected 6,000 votes. Machines with 99.99% could have kicked out 600.
And those operating at 99.999% accuracy could have disregarded 60
''That's a significant number of votes, and in a close election, a hand
not only necessary, it's essential,'' says Rebecca Mercuri, a computer
science instructor at Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, Pa.
In Florida, the state Supreme Court is being asked to choose between man
''I think the real question is: Who gets to decide, and who do we accept
the final decision-maker?'' says Paul Rothstein, a law professor at
Georgetown University in Washington. ''Is it the Florida Supreme Court?
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? Or the U.S. Supreme Court? It's whose
word do we finally accept?''
© Copyright 2000 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.