The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-05
CHR|ST|ANSEN'S
MACHINE MUCH
TOO COMPLEX
Trying the Mechanical
Voter.
OPINION OF AN EXPERT
WOULD DESTROY THE PRIVACY
OF THE BALLOT.
Defects Which Would Seriously In
terfere With the Expression
of the Peoples
Voice.
WOULD DESTROY THE PRIVACY
OF THE BALLOT.

Inventor Christensen gave a voting
afternoon yesterday which was more or
less of a success. christensen received
and his voting machine entertained. He
asked every one to vote and to criticize
an invitation promptly accepted by the
few who were there, and the result was
not entirely satisfactory-to the machine
and its owner.
The Christensen machine was the one
that raised such a storm, partly over its
political success and partly over its me-
chanical defects. 1t was the one through
which the suffragists of the State were
to record their choice whether they liked
it or not, and despite demand by the
people for an efficient machine, and when
its rods tangled and it's mechanism
snapped and its dials refused to record
the inventor had some difficulty in eX-
planning that the mechanical tally clerk
had yet few trifiing alterations to I'M
dergo.
Among those who inspected the clock
work politician was an expert machinist,
sent by The, Call, and his report is any
thing but cheering. The vote-maker is
built on good principles-the mechanical
recording of the peoples choice-but like
some other party workers it Is not above
twisted and sometimes they work and
sometimes they don't. voter has to
pull rod and give it a quarter turn and
swear at it. There is a whirr and a rat
dial and vote Is recorded for one of the
candidates, presumably the one intended
1t Is much more complicated than the
average tally clerk, but it does not drink
nor smoke, nor does it draw pay after
being adopted by the Legislature
In giving his opinion of the machine
The Calls expert said:
Il am afraid Mr.. Christiansens machine
needs to be simplitied considerably. The
mechanical principles upon which the ma
chine Is based are perfectly sound, but
voter would have to be extremely careful
in using 1t lest he should fail to cast his
vote. In my mind, the machine does not
meet the requirements of a voting ma
chine 1t is altogether too complex. In
its present state l do not believe there is
one ordinary individual in a hundred who
could use it without making a mistake,
and the election officials could hardly
of the Vote-casting rods. There is also a
very grave danger of the mechanism of
the machine getting out of gear on cleo
ton day.
"One feature of the invention that Is open
to criticism is that it is possible to easily
disarrange the machine after the voter
has cast his vote. Also, the figures on the
indicating rods are too small, a defect
which would render the counting of the
votes a rather complicated job. A voter
in casting his vote lifts the voting rod
opposite the name or number Of the candi-
date he wishes to vote for, and the rod
is then held in suspension. The act of
giving the rod a quarter turn records the
vote on the indicating screw.
Should the voter be careless and forget
to give the rod a full quarter turn, that
particular vote would not register This
is a serious defect, and it would have to
be Obviated by some mechanical contriv-
ance.
''The adoption of such a machine would
bid fair to destroy the privacy of the
ballot"