As part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the House of Representatives authorized an electronic means for recording floor votes. The language in the 1970 act, however, was not the first legislative proposal to allow the use of an automated voting system in the House. Between 1886 and 1970, 51 bills and resolutions were introduced to bring automated, electrical, or mechanical voting to the House of Representatives. The current electronic voting system was first used on January 23, 1973. In 1869, Thomas Edison registered a patent for the first electric vote recorder. Edison designed the system after learning that the Washington, DC, city council and the New York state legislature were considering systems to record votes automatically. In Edison's system "each legislator moved a switch to either a yes or no position, thus transmitting a signal to a central recorder that listed the names of the members in two columns of metal type headed 'Yes' and 'No'." Edison and his colleague Dewitt Roberts demonstrated the machine to Congress, where Edison recalled: We got hold of the right man to get the machine adopted, and I enthusiastically set forth its merits to him. Just imagine my feelings when, in a horrified tone, he exclaimed: "Young man, that won't do at all! That is just what we do not want. Your invention would destroy the only hope the minority have of influencing legislation. It would deliver them over, bound hand and foot, to the majority. The present system gives them a weapon which is invaluable, and as the ruling majority always know that it may some day become a minority, they will be as much averse to any change as their opponents." In 1886, electric and mechanical voting was proposed for the House with the introduction of two separate resolutions. Representative Lewis Beach introduced a resolution in February directing the Committee on Rules to "inquire into the feasibility of a plan for registering votes." In June, Representative Benjamin Le Fevre submitted a resolution on the electrical recording of the yeas and nays. The resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules. No further action was taken on either resolution. During the 63 rd Congress (1913-1914), Representative Allan Walsh introduced H.Res. 513, providing for an electrical and mechanical system of voting for the House of Representatives. A special subcommittee of the Committee on Accounts held hearings on an automated system where each Member would have a voting box with three or four buttons attached to a desk. Each voting box would have a unique key and each Member would be assigned to a box that only his or her key would operate. The votes would then be transmitted electrically and recorded mechanically by a machine installed on the clerk's desk, with votes displayed on boards throughout the chamber and in the cloak rooms. Following the subcommittee's hearing, no further action was taken on H.Res. 513. A similar proposal, H.Res. 223, was introduced in the 64 th Congress (1915-1916) by Representative William Howard. Hearings were held by the Committee on Accounts on the proposal and testimony was heard from outside experts, including representatives of the company then installing an electrical voting system in the Wisconsin legislature. H.Res. 223 was favorably reported by the Committee on Accounts, but was not acted upon by the House. During the hearings on H.Res. 513 and H.Res. 223, Members' statements and questions dealt with the length of time needed to vote in the House, the accuracy of such roll-call votes, and the cost of developing and implementing an electrical vote recording system. For example, during his testimony on H.Res. 513, Representative Walsh testified that "taking 45 minutes as the average time consumed in a roll call, the time consumed in the Sixty-second Congress in roll calls was 275 hours, or 55 legislative days." Members of the Committee on Accounts, however, were concerned that shortening votes could "flood the country with legislation" as well as speed up the voting process, thus disrupting then-used delaying tactics resulting in "filibuster by means of roll calls." The hearings also addressed Members' concerns that voting mistakes could be made using an electrical and mechanical system. In the hearings on H.Res. 513, Representative Walsh testified that the voting system he envisioned would automatically cut off the circuit after a prescribed time to end a vote. In the instance where a Member missed a vote, Representative Walsh desired to let the Speaker decide whether the Member would be allowed to vote. Representative Howard's resolution, H.Res. 223, overcame this perceived deficiency and allowed for vote changes either through the mechanical system or through a more traditional paper method. The issue of cost was also raised during the hearings. During the hearings on H.Res. 513, members of the Committee on Accounts expressed concern about the cost of development and installation of the electric voting system. Representative Walsh testified in the 63 rd Congress that his proposed voting system was estimated to cost no more than $25,000. In the 64 th Congress, however, in the report recommending adoption of Representative Howard's resolution, the Committee on Accounts estimated that the electrical voting system would cost $106 per unit, with a total cost of approximately $125,000. Although the report on H.Res. 223 recommended the resolution's adoption, there was still division in the Committee on Accounts over the desirability of such a voting system. A majority found that an electrical and mechanical system could help Members save time and avoid the practice of reading each name twice for every roll-call vote and quorum call: From the statements of the experts before the committee it is evident that such a device can be constructed. From a view of the working model of one device, it is evident that a practical voting system can be instituted, and from the statements of various Members of the House, it is evident that there is a very strong desire for some means of saving the time of Members.… Believing that a system can be adopted which will save time, encourage the regular attendance of Members, and insure absolute accuracy in registering and recording the votes of the Members, the adoption of this resolution is recommended. A minority opposed the concept of an electronic system and the potential loss of floor time to review proposals before casting a vote: It must be frankly admitted that the proposed device, if properly installed in the House, will rapidly record the vote if all Members are present. Voting, however, is the most important function of a Member of Congress, and we seriously question the wisdom of hurrying this branch of the work. It frequently happens under the present system that Members are required to vote before they have fully formed their judgment. The time taken in voting is obviously time of deliberation, of conference, of quiet discussion, and of interchange of views. Often, under the present system, before the voting has closed, Members change their votes. It is not an unreasonable thing to require a half hour or more to take the votes of 435 men who, as frequently happens, have been engaged in debate on an important question for weeks.... Speed is not the most necessary thing in legislation. While no action beyond committee reports occurred for either H.Res. 513 or H.Res. 223, proposals to install automatic, electrical, or mechanical vote counting systems continued to be introduced. In 1923, Representative Melville Kelly introduced H.Res. 497, "providing for the purchase and installation of an electromechanical voting system in the House of Representatives." Referred to the Committee on Accounts, H.Res. 497 was reported by the committee on February 28, without recommendation. In the report, the committee noted that similar resolutions were favorably reported by the committee in the 63 rd and 64 th Congresses and "that all Members could vote simultaneously, if so desired. It was also shown that a great saving in times could be affected [sic] in the calling of the roll in the House by the use of one of these voting machines." With the exception of H.Res. 513 introduced by Representative Walsh in 1915, H.Res. 223 introduced by Representative Howard in 1916, and H.Res. 497 introduced by Representative Kelly in 1923, none of the bills or resolutions subsequently introduced received committee or floor attention. Each was introduced, referred to committee, and not acted on. The Appendix lists each of the proposals to install automatic, electrical, or mechanical voting in the House of Representatives. The cycle of introduction and non-action for automated voting bills continued into the 1950s. At that time, Representative Charles Bennett, a longtime proponent of automated voting, wrote an article for U.S.A. The Magazine of American Affairs advocating that the House of Representatives should adopt modern technology to vote and that not doing so proved how antiquated the House of Representatives was compared with state and foreign legislatures: There once was a congressman who, when notified that a vote was to be taken, would race to the legislative chamber in time to beat the final rap of the gavel—from his home 19 miles away! He'd usually make it, too, because the taking of a record vote in the House of Representatives requires about 45 minutes the way it is done now. Not until the 91 st Congress (1969-1970) was further action taken by the House to advance proposals on automated voting. In 1969, during the Democratic Caucus's organizational meeting for the 91 st Congress, Representative C. Melvin Price introduced a resolution on vote recording procedures in the House of Representatives. The resolution stated: RESOLVED: That it is the sense of the caucus that the Speaker of the House shall immediately proceed to take such steps as may be necessary to improve the vote recording procedures in the House of Representatives. The resolution was agreed to by the Caucus and sent to the Speaker of the House. In response to the resolution, Speaker John McCormack sent a letter to the Committee on House Administration asking it to examine automated voting.