Electronic voting is a typical example of the need to overhaul our voting system.
When the first electronic systems were introduced in the voting process in the 1970’s, a few newspapers predicted that it could lead to unreliable elections results.
Since then, electronic voting machines have evolved and so has their lack of accountability and audit-ability. The original electronic systems were used to scan paper ballots marked by the voters. With the newer machines, the DREs (Direct-Recording Electronic voting machines), the whole process became fully electronic with no paper trail left for verification purposes. The machines were assumed to be infallible.
In 2002, the Help America Vote Act required that all voting equipment in the country be upgraded and allocated approximately $4 billion for that purpose.
Following heavy marketing tactics from the major voting equipment manufacturers, the choice for most of the upgrades was originally the DRE. In 2004, approximately 30% of all voting equipment in the U.S. were DREs, and it was assumed that they would replace all other types of voting equipment within a few years.
However, public outcry slowed down the process. Despite almost no coverage from the major media, organizations were formed all over the U.S. to fight the spread of the new voting systems. Among the most vocal were some of the top computer security scientists in the nation who had the opportunity to view the code of the software used in many voting machine and decried its absence of security features, among many other flaws.
Ironically, the software could only be studied because it was inadvertently left on a manufacturer’s web site (Diebold) for everyone to see. So much for security.
Other activists have documented over the years voting irregularities that occur systematically when DREs are being used.
Also of concern has been the fact that several of the programmers that created the original software were convicted felons.
The main problem with Direct-Recording electronic voting machines is the secrecy at every level.
In the voting process, the only thing that is supposed to be secret is the choice made by an individual voter. Every other step of the process is supposed to be open to public scrutiny. With electronic voting at its present state, public scrutiny is not possible.
The machines are manufactured by private companies. Like any computer, there are two parts: the hardware (the computer), and the software (the programs that register, and count the votes). Two companies supply approximately 80% of the voting machines in the U.S.: ES&S and Diebold. A few smaller companies like Sequoia and Hart-Intercivic share the rest of the market. Because they are private companies, all their products are patented and are considered to be company secrets.
So the future of voting at some point in time seemed to be machines that were manufactured in total secrecy and also counted the votes in total secrecy without any means of verification.
Numerous organizations all over the United States are now fighting to reverse the process. Some are national, many are local
The CEO of Diebold surely helped their cause when he wrote in a fund-raising letter that Diebold was committed to delivering Ohio to George Bush.
However, it is a hard fight. The passage of the Help America Vote Act was the result of lobbying by very powerful organizations, not just the machine manufacturers. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, at the national level as well as at the local level have shown little interest in pushing for change.
This is an issue that we will follow regularly on this site.
Right now, if you want to know more about it, go to the Electronic Voting Links page.
User login
