Explaining the machines

Dear Editor: Upon reviewing various letters to the editor regarding electronic voting machines versus manual counting of balllots, I feel compelled to write. I find it interesting that those persons voicing their opinion have virtually no experience in conducting an election, particularly a local municipal election, nor have they ever approached me during a municipal election. It was alleged that manual counting of ballots is subject to various improprieties.

During my 40 years of working for local governments in British Columbia and Alberta I have experienced numerous changes as to how elections are conducted.

Summerland was the forerunner in using electronic voting machines. Upon attending various workshops in Surrey, I was convinced that this was the way to go, not only in saving money, but also for the accuracy in ballot counting.

One further plus was that a “spoilt ballot” could be corrected and the voter’s ballot would not be rejected. It was surprising how many balllots were marked incorrectly and had to be rejected. Many of these ballots would have been automatically rejected if they had been counted manually.

By using an EVM the individual ballot would have been rejected by the machine, and a print-out by the machine would have stated the reason for rejection such as: too many votes cast, incorrect voting, outside the box area, etc. An election official would confirm the error and give the voter a new ballot for completion. In most cases, an EVM would have discovered the error and the error would have been corrected at that time. This would not occur if ballots were counted manually. The voter would have been thinking that his/her ballot is valid when in fact it was not. Improprieties: I personally cannot comprehend an election official contemplating such an act, but humans being hu- mans, it could happen. All election officials take an oath prior to an election. One key to turn the EVM on and off is held by the Chief Election Official, as well there are various staff in close proximity to the EVM, and the first voter of the day signs an affidavit certifying that the machine is clear, with respect to votes cast. If any illegal activities are to take place, they would occur during programming, which is highly unlikely, as that is done by the machines’ vendors, who live out of town. Summation: I find it difficult to understand why this issue is being brought forward at this time, with those involved not taking the time to get all the facts, or to obtain the municipalities’ position.

George Redlich Retired Chief Electroal Officer and Administrator

Penticton