One PA county fixed its messy elections. Others can too

What is the ⁣easiest way to cast doubt on an election? By telling voters that⁣ casting a ballot for the candidate who is the opposite of their choice is actually ​the way to vote for the candidate they want. It may sound too strange to be true, but that is what happened in a judicial race in Northampton, Pennsylvania.

Northampton experienced an ⁢eerie case of déjà vu during ​its most recent election. In 2019, the Philadelphia suburb had faced ​glitches with its touchscreen voting machines on Election Day, causing machines to undercount the votes for one candidate. This year, glitches struck again, causing ballot printouts to reflect a different result than the one voters selected ⁢on the machine.

Northampton County officials stated that the ⁢error did not affect election results because the vote is not counted based on the printout. Instead, a barcode on the printout documents the official vote. However, it is unclear how ​much the ​confusion over ‍the printouts changed voter behavior.

One election observer at the Wesley‌ United Methodist Church reported that election officials told ⁤voters to ⁣select the opposite⁢ candidate on the machine to produce the correct‌ candidate on the printout. Although election officials eventually⁤ began ‍warning voters that their vote‌ would show up incorrectly on the printout, incorrect instructions could have affected the count in a way that would be⁢ impossible to verify or rectify.

It was also reported that some​ voters were turned away from polling locations ⁤because of the error, and others had to vote on provisional ballots. Additionally, some voters ​were given an‌ emergency paper ⁤ballot, but each polling station shockingly had only 25 emergency ballots, making it impossible for every affected voter to use this contingency. These mistakes have drawn criticism⁢ from voting groups across ⁢the political spectrum.

What is particularly concerning about Northampton’s recurring machine glitch is⁢ that it‌ could‍ have easily been avoided by learning from 2019’s machine debacle, checking ⁣preelection processes, and thoroughly testing⁣ the machines prior to Election Day. According⁤ to Politico, County Executive ‍Lamont McClure argued that “more rigorous pre-Election Day testing, more paper ballots and better communication could prevent the errors in 2019 and 2023.”

Other Counties Learn from Past Problems

Fortunately, some counties are learning from past problems and are paving the ⁤way toward improved election administration, including another Philadelphia-collar county with a history of election issues.

Since 2020, Bucks County has ​received complaints about late election returns, lack of meaningful observation of absentee ballot processing, drop-box security, ballot shortages, processing‍ errors, and more. However, election officials were receptive to ​concerns and are taking steps to avoid repeat mistakes.

These⁤ improvements ‌included ensuring locations had enough ballots, changing the county’s⁤ ballot supplier, improving drop-box security, and creating ⁢processes​ for addressing when multiple ballots are deposited by a single voter.

For example, because of cases across ‍Pennsylvania where⁤ individual ‍voters deposited more than one ballot into drop boxes in violation of Pennsylvania law, Bucks County’s drop-box security received a significant facelift. Each⁤ drop box is​ located within‍ a government building, such as a ‌library, meaning that drop boxes are only ‌accessible during the hours the government building is open. In addition, the drop boxes are monitored by both ‌county observers and video surveillance. As ‍a result, everyone can observe clear security measures ​around the‍ drop boxes.

Bucks County’s adoption of best practices for drop boxes also includes giving voters clear instructions ⁣to avoid mistakes and potential process concerns. ‍Each drop box ​includes clear signage informing voters that they should only ⁢deposit ⁢one ballot per voter. And thankfully, the county has also developed procedures for when those instructions are violated. If more than one ‌ballot is dropped by a⁢ single voter, the batch of ballots is sequestered and brought to the board of elections to be adjudicated.

It is a relief to see a good-faith attempt to address ballot harvesting, rather than let it go completely unaddressed. The approaches to effective⁣ election administration in Northampton County and Bucks County could not be more different. ⁤Bucks County is proving that an ounce of prevention is worth ‌a pound of cure. Bucks has had repeated avoidable issues but

What ⁣can be learned from the‌ recurring machine glitch in Northampton County and⁢ how can similar issues be prevented in the future

To⁣ address the issues.

One of the key steps taken in Bucks ⁣County is ⁤the implementation of radical ⁣transparency in the election process. According to the Washington Times, Bucks County⁢ provides video livestreams of the entire process, including‌ the scanning and tabulation of ballots. This allows the public to observe ⁢every step of the process and ensures accountability.

Additionally, Bucks County has⁢ taken ​measures to improve communication with voters and address concerns. They have established a dedicated election hotline and⁢ a response team to ‌quickly address any issues that arise. They have also increased the number of polling locations and staff to ensure smooth and efficient voting.

These ‌proactive measures taken by Bucks County demonstrate a⁣ commitment to improving ‍the election administration process and ensuring‌ that every vote counts. By learning from past problems⁤ and implementing⁤ solutions, they are working⁣ towards a more transparent and reliable election system.

In ⁣contrast, the recurring machine glitch in Northampton County ⁢raises questions ⁣about the effectiveness of their election administration. Despite facing ⁢similar issues in 2019, the county failed to ​prevent the glitches​ from occurring again in the most recent‌ election.⁤ This has led to confusion among voters, potential discrepancies in the vote count, and criticism from voting groups.

The Northampton County case serves as a reminder ‌of the ‍importance​ of thorough testing and preparation before‍ Election Day. As Lamont McClure, the County⁢ Executive, suggested, more‌ rigorous pre-Election Day‍ testing, increased use of paper ballots, and better ​communication could have prevented these errors. It is crucial for election officials to prioritize ⁤the integrity of the election process and ensure that all voters can cast their ballots accurately and without confusion.

Overall,​ the experiences of Bucks County and Northampton ‍County ⁢highlight the need for continuous improvement in⁢ election administration. The⁤ implementation of radical ‌transparency and proactive measures taken by Bucks County⁢ demonstrate effective ways to address past problems and ensure a smooth⁣ and reliable election process. On the other ‍hand, the recurring machine glitch in Northampton County emphasizes the consequences‍ of overlooking previous issues and‍ failing to take necessary precautions. By learning from these examples and implementing best practices, election officials can instill greater confidence in the electoral process and uphold the integrity of democracy.