As federal elections draw near, security doubts are delaying paperless voting alternatives in Arizona and throughout the United States.
Global Election Systems, owned by Ohio-based Diebold Inc., is one of many election equipment providers under investigation for security flaws in its direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting systems. The systems are commonly equipped with touch screens on which voters can choose their candidates in a paperless procedure. Alphabetic keyboards are provided to enter names of candidates not on the ballot. Votes are stored on smart card storage devices and tabulated electronically at the local voting location and again at the national level.
This technology is the future of voting, and it is our responsibility to ask the important questions: Is this efficient? Is this safe?
Diebold was reluctant to release its source code for further investigation, leading security professionals to wonder what the company was hiding. In a recent study, John Hopkins University addressed these concerns. According to the study, Diebold's equipment was cited to be vulnerable to attacks from both inside and outside the company. Attackers could construct and use their own smart card device to vote multiple times or halt an election early.
The possibility of voting fraud is easily checked by the electronic and human elements of the system, a regular check and balance. Diebold maintains that its system transmits only unofficial local vote counts, which are later checked back against the original counts stored on the memory devices at the local site. Workers at the voting sites check the machines and monitor the voters to prevent voting fraud.
With these safeguards in place, there is little reason not to support electronic voting. It is cheaper and less time-consuming than paper ballots, and more efficient for voters in remote areas.
An alternative to the proprietary software of Diebold can be found in Brazil, where open source software that can be easily modified and secured is used to keep costs low, since it operates without the licensing fees that proprietary software carries. Using this type of software would help developing nations to use efficient methods of voting, and more accurately assess the desires of the citizens.
In Brazil, battery-powered units with the photographs of voters were used to allow citizens in remote areas to take part in the political process.
Brazil's example has diverse applications in the United States, especially areas where residents do not have home Internet connections. Portable devices on a wireless network would allow residents of reservations and rural and low-income areas to vote with greater ease.
It is important to reach these demographics so that the votes remain equally distributed among people of all economic and racial designations.
Electronic voting alternatives are required to replace traditional punch card and lever machines by 2006 under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The act provides funding for and guides the implementation of modern voting systems from 2002 to 2007.
Paperless alternatives are designed to provide accessibility for the elderly and disabled, eliminate the possibility for voter error and increase voter turnout. For the wired generation, the online voting alternative would allow millions to contribute to the election process without leaving home and would streamline the process for those who choose to travel to voting sites. In turn, participation would be greater and more people would feel they personally contributed to the democratic process.
Arizona demonstrated paperless polls' potential for success when it became the first state to implement online voting in 2000 in a pilot program. Despite initial technical problems, officials measured a greater turnout for the Democratic primary on a single day than in the entire 1996 primary, and a 40% increase in overall voter turnout. The more voters we can get to the polls, the better.
To make online voting a reality, a secure network utilizing PIN numbers and virtual private networks could be constructed. The votes could be transmitted to a physical memory device, perhaps inside a locked "ballot box," to inhibit physical tampering with the tabulations. And finally, to prevent multiple votes from an individual and protect the secret ballot, voter participation could be recorded separately from votes.
Security issues are important to address and to fix, but bringing the vote to all citizens and having every vote count is the most important goal.
Human error is responsible for lost votes, a disservice to all voters. After the international embarrassment known as the 2000 presidential election, properly implemented electronic voting has the opportunity to bring the vote to every American citizen who has the right to vote and be heard. Let's get going.
Audra Baker is a biology and journalism junior. Reach her at audra.baker@asu.edu.
