Editorial: Cheaper solutions work better sometimes | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: Cheaper solutions work better sometimes

1552941_web1_1409856-f8fb5b3a06c644b48f3ae572ab52cff2

Sometimes you’ve got to decide between what’s better for the job and what you can afford.

Maybe you could really use a brand-new custom-built house with four bathrooms and a kitchen that is all granite and stainless steel. But what you can afford is a fixer-upper where your kids will have to argue over a shower.

But what if the fixer-upper isn’t what you want, but it’s exactly what you need? What if the fancy house you crave is really a money pit?

Some Pennsylvania counties are finding themselves in that situation. And it looks like they aren’t thinking with their wallets.

Election security is important, and the state wants to see new voting machines to ensure that the votes cast are actually the votes counted.

Gov. Tom Wolf announced a $90 million bond issue in July so counties can get machines with paper trails before the 2020 presidential election.

Allegheny and Westmoreland counties aren’t among the 31 that have picked their new systems. Of those, 24 have elected for a paper-ballot-based process that costs about half as much as an electronic option.

According to Christopher Deluzio, policy director for the Institute for Cyber Law Policy and Security at the University of Pittsburgh, an analysis he did with Kevin Skoglund of Citizens for Better Elections showed this is one of those times where cheaper is better.

And it’s better in more ways than one.

There is the fact that paper is harder to hack. The paper system also allows a reliable recount.

It could also help head off large lines at the ballot box. If you only have two or three electronic machines, lines can crop up while people wait for other voters to finish making their choices. With paper machines, additional stations can be set up if a backlog of voters arises.

But it will probably surprise no one that in a bureaucracy, what is cheaper, more secure and more efficient doesn’t necessarily mean it is what gets selected. Seven counties, including Philadelphia, are spending more money on more expensive equipment.

Pennsylvania isn’t alone in this. Other states are finding similar situations. Georgia has been ordered by a federal judge to replace its outdated system after the fall elections, and a study has shown a hand-marked paper ballot purchase could save the state $90 million.

The fixer-upper might not be fancy, but sometimes it gets the job done.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.