About Voting Machines And Counting.

I had a most interesting education last week, at a meeting of the NH Ballot Law Commission. The Commission was deciding whether to certify an upgrade of the voting machines used by about half of our cities and towns for this November's election. A change in the formatting of the ballot requires the upgrade if machines are to continue to be used.

The Commission first held a 4 hour public hearing, during which about 20 citizens spoke about the relative accuracy of the voting machines. A lot of the commentary raised legitimate questions. My fellow NHInsider.com bloggers Alexander Lee and Chaz Proulx have written about those concerns, and readers can see their archives for more background information. Several of the hearing participants were from Democracy For New Hampshire.

I also testified. I pointed out that the committee I was appointed to during my first term in the NH House in 1969 worked on election law issues, and would often discuss voting machines. That was some 37 years ago. I noted that 37 years from now, in 2043, we'll probably be discussing the same issue. It happens. In 1969 we also debated income taxes, abortion, smoking, and eminent domain.

I found all the comments useful, and I don't question the sincerity of those speaking for the machine certification. City and town clerks do work hard, and want their elections to be accurate and well-run. I do think that it was clear that the "old way" of hand-counting ballots has special value, and it is okay from time to time to question our reliance on technology.

I come down on the side of hand-counting ballots. Democracy isn't always supposed to be the most efficient and quickest form of government. It is important to our free election style of democracy that our votes be counted by human beings in full public view. Half of the process of democracy is being able to vote; the other half is being fully sure every one of those votes is counted.

Humans CAN count to 100, then we can count to 1,000. Most voting districts in our state don't have more than 4,000 ballots in an election. There is a way to set up the process of counting votes by hand that assures an orderly, workable, accurate system without people getting too exhausted. In some cases it's even cheaper than using machines. In all cases it's a way to guarantee that voters and candidates alike see that the entire procedure is open and honest.

"Efficiency" isn't the most important ingredient in a democracy. Putting aside whether machines are accurate (which even machineacrats admit do have a margin of error), or whether hand-counting is better (which even machineaphobes admit can be cumbersome), the fact is that technology in democracy should be used very sparingly.

Where does it end? Some people want us to set up a system of voting VIA the Internet. Others want touch-screen balloting. Pretty soon perhaps the only reason we'll ever need to see or talk with one another face-to-face is to make . . . whoops, I forgot, those can be made in test tubes nowadays.

The technology question continues in the issues raised by "voter ID." Some people are insisting on picture identification cards, but we all know those can be altered, as any 16 year old who has a fake ID happily knows. So, what about fingerprint analysis when voting? Or eye scans? Maybe a DNA test? Welcome to the 21st Century.

Maybe those in Ancient Greece, the architects of this experiment we call "democracy," had it right: citizens should get together now and then and look at one another - - maybe even smile and laugh - - and decide how they want to be governed. Is it too much for us to ask that once or twice a year, we all go to the polls (unless one absolutely must vote by absentee ballot) to cast our ballots, and that human beings look at those ballots and count them in public?

I couldn't find any confirmation in the research I did, but I doubt the Athens Board Of Counters (ABOC) used many electronics in their procedures.

Oh, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission approved certification for the machines by a vote of 4-1. The adventure continues.