Electronic voting controversy? Not here
By JAMES BEATY, senior editor McAlester News-Capital
Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:30 PM CDT

Unless there's a landslide in the upcoming Nov. 2 presidential election, the seeds have already been sown for another post-election controversy.

If this year's showdown between Republican President George W. Bush and the Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, is as close as polls show, a post-election controversy may be inevitable.

Once again, the reason for the controversy in a very close election will likely be the way votes are cast in some states, as well as the way those votes are counted.

A repeat of those infamous hanging chads from paper ballots in Florida in the 2000 election is not expected. In fact, a system being implemented to get away from hanging chads, pregnant chads and other kinds of chads could be the reason for future election controversies.

Once again, if those looking to upgrade their voting systems had only looked to Oklahoma for an example, a lot of potential problems could have been avoided.

Four years ago I felt surprised to learn that Florida, often held up as one of the most progressive states in the union, used a primitive paper-punching voting system.

When some of the spaces on the ballots weren't punched all the way through during the race between Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore in 2002, chaos reigned - along with those unforgettable images of election workers squinting and holding ballots up to the light to see if a voter had made an unsuccessful attempt to punch through them.

Not only did every vote count, but some votes that were never made were likely counted too.

At the time, I thought that if only the people in Florida had used the same voting system as Oklahoma's, there wouldn't have been the problems seen with the hanging chads - trying to deduce after the fact whether a voter had intended to cast a ballot for a particular candidate.

We didn't have that problem in Oklahoma because the Sooner State uses a system where cardboard ballots are marked by a pen and ink, and then electronically counted by a voting machine. Either a ballot is marked by a candidate's name or it isn't - leaving no room for questions about hanging chads.

In an attempt to upgrade their voting systems and to make the materials used to cast votes more user-friendly, a number of states have now adopted touchscreen voting machines.

Almost a third of the voters, or about 50 million people, are expected to cast ballots with the touchscreen machines during the Nov. 2 presidential election.

Touchscreen machines are described as similar to ATM machines, which supposedly would make them easier for some voters to use.

The only problem is that unlike the electronic voting system used in Oklahoma - or even unlike the ballots that produced the hanging chad problem during the last presidential election - they leave no paper records.

Touchscreen voting has already been labeled a failure this year in states ranging from Maryland to California.

What about recounts? If the first count is suspect, how can votes made on a touchscreen voting system be checked if something goes wrong electronically, without a paper system for backup?

Even if there are backup paper records, questions persist about the software used. Those questions aren't being answered, because federal regulators have no oversight about how the machines and accompanying hardware are being tested.

It's all being done by private firms, which are conducting the tests in secrecy and also aren't too open to answering questions about the software being used. They contend their contracts require it.

Trust us, they say.

Uh-huh.

It's almost unbelievable that the American people are being asked to accept on faith - in private companies, no less - that the votes of 50 million Americans will be correctly counted when it comes to electing the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

All those problems could have been avoided if they had only looked to Oklahoma for a model.

Current problems with the touchscreen voting system leave too much room for skullduggery of the political kind.

Those old tales about ballots being cast in the names of people who've been dead for years could give way to a new sort of hi-tech ballot tampering under the touchscreen system. Even though it's a relatively new system, it's in dire need of an overhaul.

Our leaders in Washington should do whatever is necessary to ensure federal oversight of the voting results - even if it requires new legislation.

If this year's presidential election is as close as the one four years ago, there could be a need for another recount - but no one is saying with certainty exactly how that will be accomplished with the votes cast on the touchscreen machines.

It all reminds me of the title of a one-time television game show - "Who Do You Trust?"

When it comes to electing the leader of the free world, trust should not have to be a factor.

Show me the numbers.