Electronic voting is here to stay despite fears of tampering

EDITORIAL

When voters go to the polls in Georgia's special primary Tuesday, they again will be touching ions on a computer screen rather than filling in circles or punching holes. And most welcome the chance.

Our state was one of the first in the nation to go to an electronic voting system, a $54 million computerized process installed for the 2002 vote.

Voters, for the most part, have embraced the new system. The old processes have been replaced by a touch-screen that allows voters to record their preferences quickly and easily with less chance of confusion or ballot foul-ups.

Some kind of change was needed. In the disputed presidential election of 2000, all eyes were cast on the "hanging chad" ballots in Florida amid charges of election fraud and voter confusion. Yet Georgia had more spoiled ballots than Florida, some 3.5 percent, or more than 100,000 votes. In the 1998 election, 5 percent of the state's votes were not counted because of ballot problems.

Because Florida's presidential vote was agonizingly close and Georgia's wasn't, our neighboring state's problems received more attention. Yet the 2000 vote caused each state to examine its voting systems and seek upgrades, with the federal government offering assistance.

Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox took the initiative by pushing for the new electronic system. Hall County became one of the first in the state to use the touch-screen method in the August 2002 primary, and most of the state was converted in time for the fall vote.

As we enter another key election year, though, critics of electronic voting have become more numerous and more vocal. Many charge that the computer system is vulnerable to tampering. They say that without some kind of paper proof in the form of a printed ballot, the potential for fraud is greater and the ability to recount votes is lost. A search of the Internet reveals all manner of stories linking fraud and vote-fixing to electronic voting.

A Johns Hopkins University study published last year claimed that the devices from Diebold Election Systems were not secure from tampering. Later, it turned out that the study's author had financial ties to a Diebold competitor.

Some of the conspiracy theorists question Georgia's election results from 2002. Republican challengers upset Gov. Roy Barnes and Sen. Max Cleland after polls had favored both to hold their seats. Such a surprise at the polls led many to point to the new voting process with suspicion.

Cox, Hall County Director of Elections Anne Phillips and other officials downplay these fears, saying that touch-screen voting is safe, tamper-proof and much more reliable than the old paper systems. Though adding a paper ballot printout as proof could ease some fears, the costs would be prohibitive and would not make the system any more secure.

"We've used them now in three county and two city elections, and never had any problems except occasional mechanical failures with individual machines," Phillips said. "It said even a janitor could tamper with the machines. That's so far-fetched. It would take a huge conspiracy for something like that to happen."

Conspiracies of stolen elections are nothing new. Stories of vote fixing over the years are numerous, from phantom ballots appearing at the last minute to the deceased casting votes in alphabetical order in Cook County, Ill. Yet to pull off such a heist of democracy today would involve a conspiracy on a massive scale.

The voting system woefully was behind the times for decades. Improvements should be made in the touch-screen process to improve security and provide assurance that all votes are counted accurately. If it takes a paper trail to ease such concerns, a cost-effective method should be found. Some states already allow online voting, which could be the wave of the future and encourage more people to take part in our democratic process.

Until solid proof of voting fraud is found, we should be confident that our voting machines will do what we need them to do, and what the old ones so often did poorly: Count our vote.