New election system
By Tom Eschberger
wasn’t as bad as portrayedI was extremely disappointed in the Star-Bulletin's Nov. 9 article, "New election system caused many problems." It appeared to be an advertisement for one of our competitors. Your article neglected to mention that the general election in Hawaii ran perfectly on our new system. It also neglected to mention that 60 percent of the votes cast in the U.S. on Nov. 3 were cast on ES&S systems.
The first election in Venezuela was held on the same system used in Hawaii. It was described by members of the Consejo as magnificent. This was the same country that had signed a contract with Global Election Systems and then refused to pay it after the election due to non-performance.
Your article did not mention that the subsequent general elections in Rhode Island and Detroit conducted by ES&S were text-book elections. In Dallas County, the reporting of results was delayed due to software problems. However, every ballot was counted -- and counted accurately. Bruce Sherbert, Dallas County elections administrator, said he would be happy to provide a letter of recommendation for us to any jurisdiction in the country.
Your article mentioned that Alaska loved the Global Election Co.'s system and that Global had converted 30 major jurisdictions to its system this year. Global is a fine company and it makes good products.
If you consider, however, a jurisdiction to be "major" when it contains 250,000 registered voters (that has always been the rule of thumb in this industry), then Global converted four major jurisdictions to its system this year. ES&S had sales roughly three-and-a-half times that of Global in 1998.
In your reporter's conversations with Global representatives, they obviously neglected to mention significant problems they encountered in several large jurisdictions during the general election.
For example, a headline in the Nov. 5 issue of the Charlotte Observer said, "Vote totals in Gaston invalidated; Machine failures leave local, state contest up in the air." The Las Vegas Review Journal had a headline which said, "Ballot recount ordered."
I could quote many other glitches that occurred with other types of systems and other companies, but I think you get the point.
Your article made it appear that ES&S was the only company that experienced any difficulties. The fact is that, no matter how good your hardware, software and support, if you remain in the industry long enough, you will have elections that do not go the way you or the customer would like, particularly when there is a radical change in systems.
The election in Hawaii was not perfect but, if we are invited back, it will be better. The time after that, it will be better still. Eventually, it will be close to perfect.
May I also point out that, along the way, ES&S added $1 million to the Hawaii economy.
Many of the 40 or so people from the mainland who worked the elections will undoubtedly return to your beautiful state for vacations.
BECAUSE of our involvement in your elections, a local printer had a very good year, a warehouse in Pearl City was rented that probably would still be vacant, the rental car companies got thousands of dollars in unexpected revenues, the Hilton got over $40,000 in business travel income, two condos were rented that had been vacant for months, and a bunch of kids got good part-time jobs. On top of all this, all the ballots got counted accurately.
In closing, I am very proud of the ES&S associates who worked the Hawaii elections. Any lack of perfection was not due to the lack of effort by ourselves or Dwayne Yoshina and his staff.
Tom Eschberger is vice president of ES&S
Election Systems & Software based in Addison, Texas.
