Making sure that your electronic vote will be counted

Consumer Reports | October 2004

[martin_fierro]

Making sure that your electronic vote will be counted

Next month, nearly one-third of voters will be able to cast their ballots on a computer touch screen-a highly controversial development. Some surveys show that people trust electronic voting, but the prospect alarms some computer scientists and voters' rights groups.

People in precincts that already offer e-voting have reported the use of unauthorized software, nonworking machines, and delays in tallying votes cast onscreen.

The critics point to a number of potential problems:

• Voter-access cards, needed to activate the machine, being mass-produced and used to allow individuals to vote multiple times.
• Insiders rigging machines to favor one candidate.
• Machines, lacking voter-verified audit systems, hiding problems and making recounts impossible.

E-voting machines do have advantages over older systems, and they are favored by some organizations representing Hispanic and disabled voters. The systems can be programmed for multiple languages, can provide audible ballots for the blind, and can prevent people from voting for more than one candidate for an office.

David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold Election Systems, a large manufacturer of electronic voting machines that has been battered by criticism this year, says that e-voting systems come with layers of security, plus human monitoring at polling places. If recounts are needed, Bear says, they can re-run the machines to confirm the tally or print a hard copy of every ballot that was cast.

VerifiedVoting.org, a nonpartisan lobbying group that advocates voter-verified paper ballots, says malfunctions have not been addressed, and a proper recount means comparing the new tally with voter-verified ballots.

Some jurisdictions have decided that an alternative, such as an optical scan of ballots, may be the only way-to allay concerns. This spring, an investigation by the California Secretary of State's office found security problems with some Diebold systems. The state ordered most e-voting counties to ditch the machines or take additional security measures, including active poll monitoring. Counties must also give voters the option of using a paper ballot.

Nevada is the first state with e-voting machines with a voter verified paper trail. Made by Sequoia Voting Systems, the machines allow voters to review their ballot before they leave the booth. Dean Heller, Nevada's secretary of state, says he pushed for the printed records. "Otherwise it's a trust-me scenario," he says, "and I don't think that works today."

What you can do

There are steps you can take now and on Election Day to help ensure that your e-vote gets counted.

• Try the machines ahead of time. Many localities are offering demonstrations. For more information, contact your local board of elections.
• Ask the board of elections or voter groups whether anybody is running pre-election tests to see how well machines perform. If not, lobby for one in your area.
• Check your ballot before casting it, says Lloyd Leonard, director for advocacy at the League of Women Voters. If something's amiss, contact a poll worker at once.
• Report problems to the local board of elec­tions as well as to advocacy Web sites, such as http://www.VerifiedVoting.org. Or, call Election Protection, a coalition of civil liberties organizations, at 866-687-8683; a team of attorneys is on call to help you.
• Consider lobbying for the kind of machines used in Nevada, which produce a paper record you can review.

[martin_fierro]

FWIW

[newgeezer]

Our ballots in Iowa (Linn County, at least) are the 8.5"x11" fill-in-the-dot type. The voter fills the appropriate circles with the supplied marker and, on the way out the door, feeds it into the optical reader machine. The machines -- one per precinct -- are connected to the county auditor's office via phone line. Results come in immediately after the polls close, and the paper ballots which were read by the machines remain locked inside the machines until they get back to the auditor's office.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why the Feds would favor touch screens over these simple, relatively inexpensive machines that leave a paper trail providing for easy hand recounts when necessary. I can only guess they were "wowed" by the touch screens.