Voting system rates confidence

There is no concrete evidence that South Carolina's voting system is undependable, and voters should not be discouraged from voting on Nov. 2 by those who insist that it is.

Indeed, if voters buy into suspicions about the system and fail to vote as a result, they are harming the process more than any perceived, or imagined, glitches in a machine.

Both the director of the Charleston County Board of Elections and Voter Registration and the director of the non-partisan Palmetto Project, which encourages voter registration, say the system works just fine.

Palmetto Project's Steve Skardon, who co-chaired the committee that selected the iVotronic system, calls it "the most reliable and accurate out there." Marilyn Bowers also has "full confidence" in it. A 2006 survey showed a large majority of South Carolina voters do too.

That is not to say that it isn't important to be vigilant in ensuring that votes are accurately and efficiently recorded and tallied. Doing so is necessary to achieve sound election results, and also to maintain public confidence.

Should glitches be discovered, they should be dealt with openly and quickly.

In addition, election officials should insist that Election Systems & Software report any potential problems with and vulnerabilities of its iVotronic system.

And the state should also push the federal government to establish a publicly available, searchable database of voting system glitches reported by state election boards. It would serve as a source of information for state and local governments using or searching for systems.

The iVotronic system was considered one of the best available when it was purchased six years ago. It is due to be replaced in another six years. The state does not need to rush to find its replacement, but it is never too soon to begin gathering information.

For example, newer systems have a voter-verified paper audit trail, designed to make voters feel more confident their votes are being correctly recorded.

Meanwhile, the commission should make sure that people responsible for conducting elections are well trained in how to use the system.

Some of the skepticism about the system resulted from the Vic Rawl/Alvin Greene Democratic Senate primary race. Mr. Greene, who had no political experience and who did no campaigning, soundly defeated Mr. Rawl, a seasoned politician and former judge.

Perhaps of more concern is a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. It reported that voting system vendors have failed to tell election officials when there are problems. It also said that vendors are quick to blame election officials for problems instead of conducting thorough investigations of their systems.

Voters are right to take an active interest in the voting system, and the S.C. Election Commission should pay attention to their concerns.

But it would be a mistake for voters to conclude that the process is tainted because of unsubstantiated complaints.