IN OUR VIEW Worrywarts and electronic voting

The Daily Herald

 

The only thing that was certain after the 2000 presidential election was that punch-card ballots had to go.
The turmoil over confusing butterfly ballots and punch cards with chads that didn't completely break away from the card spurred federal legislation to move the nation to computerized voting machines. Touch-screen technology, which we've seen in grocery stores, fast-food restaurants, gas stations and now airports should end the possibility of another presidential election being thrown into doubt because of a piece of paper.

Utah is expected to replace its punch-card and paper ballots with electronic voting booths by 2006, but critics here and around the country are claiming the machines are not foolproof and they need a backup system to verify the voting.

The critics argue that the computer software running the touch-screen machines could be altered by hackers to skew an election. In their doomsday scenario, someone could press the button to vote for Candidate A, but the software is rigged to record it as a vote for Candidate B.

The fear of hacking and subterfuge is further fueled by the fact that the companies making the machines are not releasing the software code to election officials, on the grounds that it is proprietary information, akin to the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

These fears are not new. We've heard similar complaints when automatic teller machines first came out. There were fears that the machines would somehow invade our privacy while cleaning out our bank accounts. There was also fear that someone would hack into the system and create havoc. Those fears never materialized and ATMs have become a part of the consumer landscape, a profitable operation for many if not most businesses.

Likewise, the fears people had about electronic commerce have failed to materialize. While there have been some isolated cases of credit card fraud, most reputable businesses have safeguards in place that make shopping over the Internet almost safer than going to a store in person.

Some caution is warranted, of course. Identity theft is on the rise, for example, as personal account information sails down the electronic highway. But on balance the whole shift to electronic transactions has been a phenomenal success.

We're sure the same will be proved true with electronic voting machines. The technology will make voting results more accurate and allow them to be tabulated faster.

One thing can be done to allay fears that voting machines might throw an election through malfunction or sabotage: Create a backup paper trail. Put a printer on the voting machine like the ones on gas pumps. The voter can look it over and point out mistakes, then stuff it in a ballot box. Then if a problem should arise, election officials would unseal the boxes and tally the receipts. As a matter of law, the paper total could be made to trump the electronic total. And paper could be brought into play whenever the difference in votes between candidates is narrow again, by a degree set by law.

With such a system in place in Florida in 2000, it's unlikely the presidential election would have gone to the Supreme Court. Unreasonable fears should not be allowed to paralyze technological advancements, in everyday life or in elections.