May/June 2001
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Variety of Voting Methods Reigns
in PA
Voting methods have been the hot topic nationwide
these past months. And in Pennsylvania, that topic was reviewed
by the legislature to determine if voting methods need to be more
uniform across the state.
To get a better idea of what method is most widely
used across the Commonwealth, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
analyzed the voting methods used during the November 2000 election
and learned that variety reigns.
Voting methods
According to the Bureau of Commissions, Elections,
and Legislation, rural Pennsylvania and the state as a whole use
five different methods of voting and the distribution of these
methods is quite diverse. Twenty-one of the Commonwealth’s 42
rural counties use the optical scan system that is used in only
one predominately urban county, Cumberland. Three rural counties,
Fulton, Potter, and Sullivan, use only paper ballots; no urban
county uses this method. Six rural and four urban counties use
the infamous punch cards and seven rural and 14 urban counties
use lever machines. The lever machine is the preferred method
in 14 of the state’s 25 urban counties. Only four urban counties
and one rural county, Greene, use a direct recording electronic
system. Four rural and two urban counties use a combination of
paper and another method.
There is also disparity among the number of registered
voters who use each method. In rural Pennsylvania, there are close
to 1.5 million registered voters, and nearly 50 percent live in
counties that use the optical scan system. Another 25 percent
live in counties that use lever machines; 16 percent live in counties
that use punch cards; and fewer than 2 percent use direct recording
systems.
In urban counties, 70 percent of the 6.3 million
urban registered voters use lever machines. Another 16 percent
use direct recording devices and nearly 10 percent use punch cards.
Although, more than 800,000 rural and nearly 600,000 urban registered
voters were subject to the dreaded chads, which are produced by
punch card machines, that is less than the national average of
20 percent of precincts reported by Governing magazine.
Voter turnout
Voter turnout in the November 2000 presidential
election was nearly 65 percent in the Commonwealth’s rural counties,
more than 2 percentage points higher than in urban Pennsylvania.
This means that of the 1.5 million registered rural voters, 960,000
cast votes for a presidential candidate. Nearly half a century
earlier, in the 1952 presidential election, there were 1 million
rural residents registered to vote and 868,000 cast votes for
the office of president. This calculates to an 86 percent turnout,
which is higher than the current rate and slightly lower than
the 1952 urban rate of 87 percent.
The number one county for voter turnout in 2000
was rural Forest County at 76 percent, and the two counties with
the lowest turnout were urban Philadelphia and Centre counties
with 55 and 56 percent, respectively. The top 12 counties for
voter turnout were rural.
Was voter turnout related to voting method? Of the
top 15 counties for turnout, 12 used the optical scan system.
Of the lowest 15 counties, only three use the optical scan system.
The lever machine was used by eight of the 15 low turnout counties
and two of the top 15. The use of other methods was not correlated
to turnout.
According to county representatives at the February
hearing on elections and voter registration issues, held by the
House State Government Committee, counties are satisfied with
the voting methods they currently employ. Each method has pros
and cons and counties have selected those they believe fit them
best at present.
Want more info?
For a copy of the fact sheet, Variety of Voting
Methods Reigns in PA, call or email the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
at (717) 787-9555 or info@ruralpa.org.
Voting Methods Defined
Following is a list and brief description of the
voting methods used in Pennsylvania.
Optical Scan - Voter colors in an oval next
to the name of a candidate. A computer scans the form to record
the vote.*
Direct Recording - Voter inputs choices
directly into a computer using an ATM-like touch screen machine.*
Punch Card - Voter pushes a stylus through
the card next to the name of a candidate. Votes are electronically
counted by another machine.*
Lever Machine - Voter pulls a lever next
to the name of a candidate and pulls another when finished to
record the votes. Counts are kept within the machine.
Paper - No electronic or mechanical means
are used in the voting process.
* Note: Direct Recording, Optical Scan, and
Punch Cards are all considered electronic voting systems by the
Pennsylvania Department of State’s Bureau of Commissions, Elections,
and Legislation.
Chairman’s Message
Last year, our nation experienced a presidential
election that tested our system of government and the way we conduct
elections. It brought to light some of the antiquated methods
that are still being used by voters to select their leaders in
this new century.
In an age of high technology, automatic teller machines,
the Internet, and other conveniences we take for granted in this
brave, new world, it is amazing how much variation remains in
how ballots are cast.
This issue of Rural Perspectives takes a
look at the various voting methods being used in the Keystone
State’s 67 counties. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania’s analysis
shows there is no one way being used, or promoted, in the Commonwealth.
The Center’s analysis is based on methods used in the November
2000 election, as reported by the Department of State’s Bureau
of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation. At a legislative hearing
of the House State Government Committee held this past February,
county representatives offered testimony indicating that, by and
large, they are satisfied with the voting methods they are currently
using.
In addition to looking at the top ways of voting
in Pennsylvania, this edition of Rural Perspectives takes
a snapshot look at the top 10 employers in rural Pennsylvania.
The article on page 5 reveals that manufacturing surfaced in 20
of the state’s 42 predominantly rural counties as the largest
employer. In our urban areas, there is almost an even distribution
between manufacturing, service, government, and health care for
the top employers. The Center can provide a list of the top employers
for all 67 counties to anyone who is interested in receiving that
information. Just call in or e-mail your request.
In this edition, I also have the pleasure of introducing
our newest board member, Senator Michael A. O’Pake of the 11th
Senatorial District in Berks County. We welcome Senator O’Pake,
who is the Senate Democratic appointment to the Board.
Former Senator Patrick J. Stapleton held this seat
on the Center’s Board of Directors for more than a decade. The
Center’s Board and staff were saddened by Senator Stapleton’s
death in March, following a lengthy illness after his retirement
from the legislature last fall. Our condolences are offered to
family and friends as we remember Pat Stapleton for his exceptional
commitment to his community and for his dedication to rural Pennsylvania.
As I close this message, I must admit that I am
enjoying the lengthening days, the warm refreshing breezes, the
colorful flowers that adorn fruit trees and gardens, and the general
hustle and bustle that comes with spring. It is a pleasure to
bid farewell to gray winter days. I appreciate the longer daylight
hours that give all of us more time to get things done outdoors.
We join with farmers across the state in the seasonal rush to
prepare the soil and plant the crops, whether a small garden or
acres of land.
In Harrisburg, a different kind of field trip brings
students to the halls of the Capitol where they spend the day
learning more about state government. They watch as members of
the General Assembly work on the final details of next year’s
budget and continue to negotiate the legislative process to finalize
Pennsylvania’s plan to invest the Tobacco Settlement Funds.
It is a busy time for all of us.
Representative Sheila Miller
State Senator Patrick J. Stapleton
Former State Sen. Patrick J. Stapleton, a founding
board member of the Center for Rural Pennsylvania and an eight-term
senator, died on March 10, 2001 at LifeCare Rehabilitation Hospital
in Pittsburgh.
Sen. Stapleton served the residents of the 41st
Senatorial District, which includes Armstrong, Indiana, and parts
of Jefferson and Westmoreland counties, for three decades and
served as the treasurer of the Center for Rural Pennsylvania for
13 years.
In 2000, Sen. Stapleton decided not to run for a
ninth term.
Throughout his 30 years of public service, Sen.
Stapleton demonstrated exceptional commitment to his community
and constituents and was a well-known advocate of rural Pennsylvania.
As a member of the Senate, he served as Minority
Chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
and was also a member of the Appropriations, Environmental Resources
and Energy, Transportation, Military and Veterans Affairs, and
Rules and Executive Nominations committees.
As a well-known advocate of higher education, he
also served as a member of the Board of Governor’s of the State
System of Higher Education for 12 years.
In his hometown of Indiana, Sen. Stapleton was a
member of the Council of Trustees of Indiana University of Pennsylvania
for 30 years and its chairman for 27 years. He was honored with
the building of a library that bears his name on the IUP campus
in October 1982.
Representative Sheila Miller, chairman of the Center
for Rural Pennsylvania, said that Sen. Stapleton served the Center
and the Senate well and will be remembered fondly by members of
both the House and Senate.
"Sen. Stapleton played such an active role
in shaping Pennsylvania’s rural agenda," Rep. Miller said.
"Through his leadership of the Center for Rural Pennsylvania,
he helped to improve the quality of life in rural communities
and small towns throughout the Commonwealth. He will be remembered
for his integrity and his leadership and will be sorely missed."
Rural Pennsylvania: The place to be
The word is out. Rural Pennsylvania is an attractive
place to live. New Census 2000 figures show that Pennsylvania’s
rural counties grew in population by 6 percent while urban counties
grew only half as fast since 1990. Five of the six counties whose
population increased by more than 15 percent were rural, and the
top three whose population decreased, Cambria, Philadelphia, and
Allegheny counties, were all urban. In all, 40 percent of urban
counties lost population while 24 percent of rural counties lost
population.
As rural Pennsylvania grows, it is becoming more
diverse. In 1990, 98 percent of rural Pennsylvanians were white
non-Hispanic. In 2000, 95 percent were white non-Hispanic, showing
an increase in the minority population of 3 percentage points.
In total numbers, Hispanics increased by 143 percent from 16,000
to 39,000; blacks by 85 percent from 26,000 to 49,000; and other
races by more than 200 percent from 16,000 to 48,000.
The population of children also shows a fast-changing
picture. White non-Hispanic children made up 97 percent of the
total rural population under age 18 in 1990. This figure fell
to 94 percent in 2000, which means an additional 3 percent were
minorities. Numbers of Hispanic children rose by 151 percent from
5,600 to 14,200, and other races increased by 228 percent from
5,500 to 18,200. The number of black children did not increase
as fast as the race in the total population, increasing 69 percent
from 7,500 to 12,600.
The top three growth counties of Pike, Monroe, and
Wayne, located in the northeast corner of the state, grew by amazing
rates of 66, 45, and 20 percent, respectively. It appears that
the rural atmosphere of this corner of the state may be appealing
to the families in neighboring New York and New Jersey.
Did You Know . . .
* Pennsylvania ranks 16th in the nation in the number
of local governments per capita.
* Efforts are underway to convert abandoned mine
land to productive agricultural land. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
will provide more information on these efforts in an upcoming
issue of Rural Perspectives.
* According to 1999 estimates, people born between
1977 and 1994 made up 25 percent of Pennsylvania’s rural population.
* In 1999, there were nearly as many rural county
residents aged 5 and under as there were residents aged 75 and
over.
Pennsylvania’s Top Rural Employers
Who are the largest employers in rural Pennsylvania?
According to data from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and
Industry, the distinction goes primarily to manufacturing and
service businesses.
In the second quarter of the year 2000, the largest
employer in 20 of the state’s 42 rural counties was a manufacturing
or service company. In 15 rural counties, the number one employer
was government, including federal and state government, and school
districts. Hospitals and other health care institutions accounted
for five of the top employers and the remaining two were retail
companies. The number one rural employers included Ward Manufacturing
in Tioga County, H E Rohrer Bus Service in Perry County, Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company in Lawrence County, Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc. in Clearfield County, and Weis Markets, Inc. in Northumberland
County.
In contrast, the top employers in the state’s urban
counties were almost evenly distributed between manufacturing
and service companies (8), government (8), and health care institutions
(7). The last two top urban county employers were universities,
including Penn State University in Centre County and Lehigh University
in Northampton County.
The difference between rural and urban employers
is less distinct when the top 10 employers in each county are
considered. For example, manufacturing and service industry employers
remain at the top of the list, followed by government. In the
top 10 breakout, school districts are not included as a part of
government and are included in the education category, along with
institutions of higher learning.
While these top employers employ more of the workforce
than other smaller companies in rural and urban areas, small businesses
as a whole employ the highest number of people. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, for example, more than 75 percent of rural
business establishments employ fewer than 10 people.
Want more info?
For more information or to receive a list of the
top 10 employers in your county, contact the Center for Rural
Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555.
Center Welcomes Senator O’Pake
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania welcomes State
Senator Michael A. O’Pake of Berks County to its Board of Directors.
Sen. O’Pake has served the Senate since 1972 and had served in
the State House of Representatives for two terms before being
elected to the Senate. He is the Democratic Whip and Majority
Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, and serves
on the Committees on Aging and Youth, Appropriations, Intergovernmental
Affairs, Judiciary, and Rules and Executive Nominations. Additional
legislative assignments include membership on the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency, the Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, the Joint State Government Commission, and
the Agricultural Land Preservation Board.
Sen. O’Pake is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University
in Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Law School,
where he received his doctorate in law.
He also serves as a member of the Board of Trustees
at Saint Joseph’s University and Alvernia College, and the advisory
board of the Berks-Lehigh Campus of Penn State University.
Update: Census 2000
It takes time to process 100 million questionnaires;
just ask the U.S. Census Bureau. Since the 2000 Census deadline
last year, the Census Bureau has been working hard to process
and compile all of that data.
At the end of December 2000, the Census released
state and national population totals and in March 2001, population
figures became available for total population and voting age population
cross referenced by race and Hispanic origin for all levels of
census geography down to the block level. (See note at below)
These selected data were released first to help determine reapportionment
and redistricting.
In the summer and fall, data from the "short-form"
questionnaire will be released. These forms, which were sent to
all households in the nation, included basic population and housing
questions such as age, race, and gender and whether the home is
owned or rented. This information is also available for all census
geographies down to the block level and its release is scheduled
to begin in June 2001.
The data from the "long-form" questionnaire,
which was only sent to a sample of households, will be available
beginning in June 2002. This release includes more detailed population
and housing data, such as ancestry and housing values, and socioeconomic
data such as income, education, and labor force statistics. This
series can be obtained only down to the census block group level
of geography.
Rural and urban data will be released between March
and June 2002 and will be available to the block level.
For more Census 2000 information, visit the U.S.
Census Bureau’s website at www.census.gov or call the Center for
Rural Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555.
A Note on Census Geographies: Besides providing
data for political geographies such as states, counties, minor
civil divisions or municipalities, legislative districts, and
zip codes, the Census Bureau creates additional levels of geography
for smaller-area analysis. Counties are divided into tracts, which
are further split into blocks. Census tracts generally have a
population size between 1,500 and 8,000 with an optimum size of
4,000. Blocks contain about the population of a city block. For
some data, block level numbers are either not as accurate or could
breach confidentiality, so the blocks are aggregated into block
groups. Block groups generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people
with an optimum size of 1,500 people.
Just the Facts: Legal Cooperation
Among Pennsylvania’s municipalities, intergovernmental
cooperation takes many forms; perhaps one of the least discussed
is sharing municipal solicitors. A municipal solicitor, or attorney,
provides legal advice and representation to local governments.
According to data from the Governor’s Center for
Local Government Services, more than 57 percent of the state’s
2,500 municipalities share solicitors.
About 50 percent of Pennsylvania’s boroughs share
solicitors and nearly 64 percent of townships of the second class
share solicitors. Census data shows that the majority of these
municipalities are rural. The median population of these municipalities
is less than 1,700. Financially, these municipalities have smaller
budgets (under $1.7 million) and fewer landuse tools, such as
planning commissions and zoning ordinances. In 1997, the average
tax bill in these municipalities was less than $163 per person;
in municipalities that do not share solicitors (excluding Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh) the average tax bill is $201 per person. Municipalities
that share solicitors spend a higher percentage of their budget,
or about 16 percent, for roads and highways than those that do
not share solicitors.
Regionally, municipalities in western Pennsylvania
are more likely to share a solicitor than those in the eastern
part of the state. At the county level, more than 85 percent of
municipalities in Perry, Wyoming, Clarion, and Jefferson counties
share a solicitor. Municipalities in Northampton, Luzerne, Delaware,
and Lackawanna counties are the least likely to share a solicitor.
There is nothing unusual about sharing legal services.
While ordinances may vary from municipality to municipality, township
or borough codes do not. Once solicitors become knowledgeable
in the various municipal codes, they can serve many municipalities.
The data shows that more than 25 percent of the state’s municipalities
have solicitors that provide services to four or more municipalities.
Some solicitors provide services to more than 10 municipalities.
In some cases, a law firm provides legal advice rather than an
individual.
Back to the Top
