Electronic voting too flawed, unreliable for use
C0rk Board
By Paul Corkery
Published: Friday, October 8, 2004 
 
There are only about four weeks left until the Presidential election and probably only four weeks and a day left until the recount begins. We all remember the voting debacle that occurred in Florida during the 2000 election. One citizen, one vote? - Clarence Thomas certainly cast a few more votes than most. Judicial partisanship aside, no one wants a repeat of 2000. There is, however, a dark cloud looming on the voting front, and it comes in the form of electronic voting (e-voting) machines.

Many districts across America have been modernizing their voting process through the use of e-voting machines, but many skeptics doubt that this will lead to more accurate vote counting. In an age of computer viruses, security glitches and system exploitation, the impenetrability of the e-voting systems currently being sold is questionable at best. State election divisions are busy trying to decide if these systems will be ready in time for elections, or whether the dimpled and hanging chads will have to be dealt with yet again.

One major producer of e-voting systems is Diebold Election Systems which will count tens of millions of votes in November. Analysts warn that this system can be easily exploited. Diebold software runs on the Windows platform, which has a long list of security flaws.

When votes are cast in a certain voting precinct, voting data is stored in a standard database format. This is all integrated into what Diebold calls its Global Election Management System, which does not include password protection for voting result databases. Moreover, the format of these databases allows them to be easily opened and altered using Microsoft Access. A security firm produced a simple 6-line Visual Basic Script that quickly altered the totals in a Diebold generated database.

Diebold claims that a standard system of checks and balances is implemented along with their system that makes any of the scenarios cooked up by analysts next to impossible, though many government officials remain unconvinced.

Diebold's machines, along with other e-voting machines from other manufacturers, have been banned in many states including California and Ohio. Perhaps more troubling is the fact that e-voting machines will be used in key battleground states including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, New Mexico, Louisiana and Tennessee.  

The concerns surrounding e-voting has led the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to publish a "best practices" tool kit to assist local election commissions in collecting fair and safe votes. Concerned citizens are already insisting that many of these "best practices" be implemented as standard for all e-voting systems.

The largest area of debate is over the need for a paper trail. Organizations such as the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) have insisted that despite the advanced processing power of e-voting machines, all should be able to print a receipt for each voter once he or she has cast their vote.

By issuing this receipt, the voter can then check to ensure that their vote was recorded correctly, thus creating a verifiable paper trail.

Governor Schwarzenegger has recently signed legislation requiring that all e-voting machines be retrofitted with mechanisms that will print a receipt for voters. The deadline for this compliance, however, is not until 2006.

Ireland's recent consideration of a nationwide e-voting system was rejected because of concerns along these lines. The Independent Commission on Electronic Voting in Ireland said that the software used in the machines was not certifiably accurate, and the absence of any paper trail was of great concern. As a result, the Irish will not see e-voting anytime soon.

When it comes to voting through a touch screen computer, there are other concerns to be addressed. There is no guarantee that voters will understand how to use the new voting system, especially those not accustomed to using computers. My grandfather cannot order a Wawa hoagie using the new computerized touch screens, which I find simple and convenient as a work isolate myself from any and all human interaction. What are the chances of my grandfather figuring out an e-voting system? I don't need to tell you that his and Florida's senior population's chances are slim.

To prevent any possible miscasting due to user inexperience, the EAC has insisted that all precincts give their voters a choice when it comes to the method they use to cast their vote. The problem is not solved so quickly, however; some of the old means of voting may appear just as arcane and confusing as the modern means. One can only hope that the system of chad punching in Florida has been d.

Reacting to the concern of voters over e-voting machine use, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) has put up a "Geek voting guide", which lists information files containing pictures and diagrams of many popular system interfaces. These documents also include a list of known security problems associated with the system so that voters can make their own decision when it comes to their use of these machines.

There is also a list of counties by state that shows what particular e-voting system is using in what areas.

Many manufacturers of e-voting machines are scrambling to quiet down system critics, though few are engaged in an active campaign to secure their machines before the election. Recommendations for system upgrades and minimum requirements standards have been made by many respected computing and security organizations, but these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears in terms of the companies rolling out these machines. The truth of the matter is that there are dangers associated with e-voting, and to vote using one of these machines is a risk, if only a slight one. Allowing the benefits of this technology to obscure the inherent risks of its use is a concern unto itself.

Predictions of the highest voter turnout in years leave little to be questioned when it comes to the need for vote accuracy. New voters will want to feel that their vote counts now more than ever. Whatever their political affiliation or preference, citizens will want to know that their vote was cast properly for the candidate of their choosing.

Voter piece of mind needs to be ensured by the adoption of more robust security standards for e-voting machines, and with little question, the ability of these machines to print out a certified voting receipt.

Most of these security concerns will not be addressed before the November election, so it will hopefully be every voter's choice whether to embrace the new and potentially flawed e-voting machines, or to cast your standard paper ballot.

Paul Corkery is a BS/MS student in information systems.