Election snafus still not resolved

Electronic voting has its perils. Imagine this odd scenario on Election Day. You step inside a voting booth and are faced with a red curtain. Behind it is a man who fills out your ballot as you tell him whom you want for president, for city council, for mayor. Yet, what if the man writes it down wrong, or switches your vote to a different candidate? Or, what if his pen breaks, or he loses your ballot? You never would know, as you do not get to see the ballot and there is no proof of your original vote.

Shouldn't the person behind the curtain show you the ballot? This metaphorical argument illustrates the grievance with completely paperless electronic voting machines, such as touch-screen devices.

Critics are demanding that electronic voting machines print a paper copy of the ballot, which the voter can inspect and can be used in the event of a recount. It is being called the "voter-verifiable paper audit trail."

While many feel that optically scanned ballots are the cheapest and most reliable method of collecting votes, there has been a rush to invest in electronic voting machines instead. States must decide quickly how to use a rare gift of matching Federal funds (allocated in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle) to upgrade outdated equipment.

Touch-screen machines are an attractive option because they are easy to use and handicapped accessible, can be programmed in multiple languages, and allow for quick tabulation of election results. No hanging chads here. However, most are paperless, with only an on-screen display. Yet, an ATM machine gives a receipt, and for obvious reasons. Even in a morally perfect world, technology can fail. Machines do make mistakes.

Numerous problems have been cited in states using electronic machines, such as a vote being recorded for the wrong candidate. Without a paper record of the ballot, it is not always clear exactly what went wrong. For example, touch-screen machines in Florida's Broward County reported 137 blank ballots in a race for a state House seat. The election was won by a mere 12 votes. It is impossible to go back and verify whether those ballots intentionally were left blank or fell victim to faulty (or malicious) codes. There is nothing to recount.

A score of legislators and computer scientists are crusading for a voter-verifiable paper trail. They advocate for Federal legislation mandating it on all electronic voting machines. Nevada and California passed similar legislation in 2003, requiring verification by 2004 and 2006, respectively.

Yet, there are those with serious concerns about a mandated paper trail. Gadget guru Ted Selker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, is an expert in human-computer interaction and the co-director of the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project. Selker likes the idea of having a verifiable audit trail, but not made out of paper. He suggests an electronic voice that reads voters' choices back to them over a headset for verification. That audio track could be recorded, providing an independent record of the vote. Digital recording offers a more secure record than paper, Selker contends, to be used in the event of a recount.

Selker also notes that pressing problems are being ignored in the wake of the push for a voter-verifiable audit trail. "Nobody's talking about ballot design; we're so embroiled in talking about voter-verified paper trails," he says. The Project found that at least 6,000,000 votes were lost in 2000 to confusing ballots, difficulties with voter registration, and polling place violations.

The security of absentee ballots, trusted to the sorting boxes of postal workers, also is an unsolved dilemma of no small consequence. MIT political science professor Charles Stewart maintains that most ballot fraud is committed via absentee ballots. Even if paper trails completely solve the problem of computer bugs and hackers, disgruntled or poorly paid postal workers could prove a greater threat to the integrity of election results. In 2003, for instance, over 29% of voters in California and even more in Washington state cast their votes by absentee ballot.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group