Reply #7: Totally agree, " it's NOT ABOUT THE COST or the CONVENIENCE". But... [View All]

[tommcintyre]

The realities are that is where we can win or lose the "war". In Hawaii, for example, the obstacles are bureaucratic, not partisan. The elections officials are pushing for: one system, convenience/efficiency AND low cost. They have been pushing for DREs (WITHOUT VVPB) claiming they will satisfy all the previous requirements. Further, they claim the cost of adding printers, and the ongoing cost of paper are both expensive and unnecessary. Of course the main argument presented in the bills is the lack of verifiability/security, etc. But even if we win (get VVPB, etc.), and we are so far, this argument doesn't eliminate the purchase of DREs. However, clearly showing that DREs are more expensive in the long run, can get both VVPB AND OPscan.

More info: Long term cost is a major concern in making a purchasing decision. HAVA is giving $20 for each $1 the state spends now. (In Hawaii, for example, a $350k investment will yield $7 million!) The states cannot pass up this windfall. Even a small state like ours would routinely spend a couple million in the next few years upgrading/replacing old equipment. However, what HAVA will not pay for is the ongoing expenses (like paper for ballots). Since resources are so limited for elections, it is very helpful to be able to show that operating DREs is actually more expensive. In fact, the cost factor can (most likely will) be used to try to defeat the bill. So evidence like this is essential.