Computer Voting

The dispute over electronic voting is as heated as a debate between presidential candidates. The risks versus the benefits are discussed, investigated, and argued. But what are the facts that lie beneath the fuss? Some assert that electronic systems are safer than other methods of voting because they implement security checks and audit trails, and are tougher to tamper with than paper ballots. One of the most widely used electronic voting systems.

Diebold Election Systems

, boasts some 33,000 voting stations in locations across the United States. Each unit provides a direct-entry computerized voting station that automatically records and stores ballot information and results. While classified as a direct record entry (DRE) device, the AccuVote-TS system has additional capabilities. The tabulator is a multifunctional interface that counts and tabulates the ballots at precincts on election day and communicates with the host computer at Election Central for accurate and timely jurisdiction wide results. However, electronic voting systems have generated concern because their work is not readily accessible for inspection; what goes on behind the screen is a mystery to the general public and therefore causes uneasiness. Indeed, a July 2003 analysis of the Diebold touch screen by computer researchers from Johns Hopkins and Rice universities (found at https://www.newscientist.com) showed that the software was riddled with errors and open to fraud. Another argument in favor of paper ballots, or at least paper receipts, is that in order to verify an election, all you need to do is gather up the ballots and tabulate them a second (or third, as the case may be) time. However, auditing paper ballot systems is not always as easy as it sounds. Ballots, particularly punch-cards, sometimes provide ambiguous results, as seen in a recent presidential election. They are easily forged and they must be physically handled and transported, which provides the opportunity for substitution or loss. The same is true for voting systems. The issue is not whether they are 100 percent secure, but whether they present adequate safeguards to give us faith in the integrity of our elections.