On Nov. 5, Pennsylvanians will turn out by the millions to cast ballots for offices including state legislators, a couple of Pennsylvania row offices, federal representatives and a U.S. senator.
Oh yes -- and president. Can't forget that one.
In Greensburg this week, the Westmoreland County voting machines were being put through their paces in advance of the big day. The idea is to work out any problems before the machine is in the hands of the public.
The voters will show up at the polls to use systems that guide them step by step through the ballot. The machines show the options and tell how many people to select for each race. When all choices are made and double-checked, a voter touches a button to print out the paper ballot -- a step meant to provide a record and a final, tangible proof of accuracy. That ballot is then walked to a scanning machine, and the voter slides it in.
It's a $7.1 million system the county purchased in 2019. It was demanded by the state after a 2018 settlement requiring auditable paper trails.
That ability to verify is important when so many people have questioned election integrity. There was the infamous 2000 Bush-Gore contest that came down to recounts of hanging chads in Florida. There were undervotes in Ohio in the presidential race in 2004.
In 2016, Republican Donald Trump won the electoral race but insisted he should have won the popular vote as well. In 2020, after days of going over and over ballots in Pennsylvania counties including Allegheny, the election was called for Democrat Joe Biden. Furor over the count led to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump still maintains he did not lose.
Pennsylvanians have been passionate about election integrity. Some have insisted the process is secure. Others insist they have been the subject of misplaced votes themselves. The most outspoken allege ill intent.
For the record, Westmoreland County is a Republican stronghold with only one elected Democrat; a minority party member on the board of commissioners is required by law. When voting questions have arisen, few have been founded.
"We've noticed over the years, if there is a problem, it's usually human error," voting systems coordinator Paul DeFloria said.
As the Westmoreland machines were tested, four people availed themselves of their right to watch the process.
Like with so many other issues that create hot tempers and harsh feelings, the question of election integrity can prompt passionate responses. But does it provoke follow-through? Do people do real research? Do they ask their leaders the questions they need to ask?
Ten people expressed interest in being present for the Westmoreland testing. Four showed up. They came from both parties. They saw the slow and deliberate process -- or at least the start of it. Testing was estimated to take the team of 16 employees and company representatives a week to go through all 900 machines.
Federal and state authorities under both Democrat and Republican leadership have attested to the security of American and Pennsylvania elections over the years, refuting the idea that the process is as threatened as some suggest. Election integrity depends as much on accepting its success as questioning its stumbles.