July 14, 2004
E-voting paranoia
This is my response to davextreme's Nationwide "Computer Ate My Vote" Day post, where he outlined all the reasons e-voting (i.e. touch-screen voting machines) are a bad idea.
While I share many of his anxieties, I think it's a bit nearsighed to dismiss e-voting machines before they've had much chance to mature.
First of all, this wouldn't be the first national election to use them. In the 2000 presidential campaign, approximately 25 million registered voters had access to touch-screen voting machines. Whether this gives validity to the subject or not is questionable, but it's important to note that these machines aren't a brand-new thing.
Once these machines are perfected, the advantages will far outweigh the drawbacks. As one article from the Boston Globe mentioned (As e-voting grows, calls for paper trail delay cards' demise):
The machines can be programmed to display ballots in numerous languages with adjustable font sizes for the visually impaired. People with disabilities, particularly blind voters, using audio prompts from a headset, can vote without assistance, unlike with other technologies that require paper.
The article goes on to discuss that most e-machines being developed now have a built-in paper back-up system, allowing for a possible recount if such a thing is necessary.
All of this is there to streamline the process of voting, making it more accessible to a wider audience. There is no conspiracy to hijack election results. I agree with Dave that there's still a lot of room for improvement: making the voting software open source for public scrutiny, creating a more reliable paper trail in the case of a recount. But it's kind of silly to stick to a system that has its fair share of problems (ballot stuffing, lost ballots, hanging chads, etc.), just because it's the way we've always done it before. From a USA Today article (Remember chads? They've hung around) comes an interesting factoid: "One in eight [voters] will be using the same type of punch-card voting machines blamed for many of Florida's problems."
As you can see, I'm for it. So is this website: electionline.org.
David Ely at July 14, 2004 09:43 AM
I'm not a luddite about it. I think that computer voting is the way to go, but I think this is what happened:
A few companies (Diebold, etc.) realized there was a market for voting machines. Since the demand was limited to only one client (the gov't) and there were only a few competing products out there, there wasn't much incentive to make them good. The gov't is notoriously bad at shopping around, usually choosing anything with a good group rate over a good product, so we got stuck with an inferior product.
This shouldn't happen, but whole counties have already agreed to buy your product, why innovate? Capitalism in this case will only product the best product needed to make a sale.
But that's just a fact of industry. What bothers me is that lots of people knew the dangers of electronic voting and were already warning everyone about it. The states should have required reviewable software and paper trails, but they didn't.
end
kenji at July 14, 2004 10:03 AM
It was definitely a hasty fix. I think that many saw the debacle in Florida and maybe jumped the gun on this issue. My fear is that the recent backlash against e-voting is going to set the (necessary) reform back. But yes, I agree with you that regulations should have been set up in the first place and the machines need to be very precise, if only to ward off public skepticism.
end