Herald Poll: Touch screen voting in Utah?

Opinion     Provo Daily Herald    18 March 2005

Like it or not, voters, Utah's punch-card ballots are probably going away.

Under the Help America Vote Act, it's just about time for Utah and other states to put away the Votamatics and the paper ballots and go electronic. It's coming sooner than you think 2006 is the federal deadline.

The only question left for Utah is which type of electronic voting system to use. Diebold and Election Systems & Software are both vying for the state's business, and a state commission will make its final recommendation later this month.

The companies each are preparing two methods for voting from which the state can choose one involves touch screens and another uses optical scanning of ballots at the voting place.

With optical scanning, voters would fill out a paper ballot by filling in black circles, like those horrible standard tests from high school days. Each voter would his own card into the card reader before placing it in the ballot box. The scan not only tallies the votes but catches voter errors. If a ballot is filled out improperly, the machine spits it back out for corrections (technical corrections, of course; it won't ask you to vote for a different candidate).

Each county would have to provide touch-screen machines for blind voters. The new law stipulates that voting systems must allow handicapped voters to cast ballots without assistance.

The touch-screen machines use the same technology you see at bank ATMs, airports and supermarket self-checkout stations. After ing a coded voting card, you candidates from the screen; or you may enter the names of write-in candidates with a virtual keyboard. Then you review your choices and hit the submit button.

Touch screens would cost the state about $22 million to install statewide, compared to about $18 million for scanning devices. But scanners also would require additional costs for paper ballots.

Some people have reservations about the machines, especially touch screens, which are only now being fitted with printing devices that can deliver hard-copy records of votes. Critics warn that votes should not be allowed to simply float off into cyberspace. With paper ballots, on the other hand, there's a backup, something that people can see and handle and count in a pinch. With electronics alone, you have to trust a computer program created by the company to tabulate the votes correctly.

A further fear is that software could be manipulated to subtract votes from one candidate and give them to another. Such nightmare scenarios are fueled by the exploits of today's computer hackers.

Public confidence in electronic voting machines wasn't boosted when Walden O'Dell, Diebold's chief executive officer, said in a letter sent to Ohio Republicans in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." The comment was innocent enough, but it was immediately seized upon as suggesting that the brains behind electronics would go to any nefarious lengths to elect their man.

But safeguards in the system reduce the potential for fraud. The machines are not networked, and programming is encoded on a removable memory card. State election offices will program the ballots and run diagnostics to ensure that each machine properly tabulates results.

Voters are given an encoded card that unlocks the machine for individual votes and keeps them from voting twice. And Diebold's machines come with a printer, which should make Gov. Huntsman happy. He recently signed legislation that requires an electronic voting machine to print a receipt. The receipt allows voters to verify their results and gives the state a paper trail for canvassing and possible recounts.

The companies maintain their computer software is proprietary and cannot be released publicly. But Diebold said, with nondisclosure agreements, it would allow state election officials to view and evaluate the code for flaws.

Is it worth $22 million to outfit every polling station in the state with this equipment? That price tag kept Utah from considering ping its punch-card system. The punch-card system is relatively cheap, and was simple and durable; no software to upgrade, no electronics or programming to deal with. By contrast, an electronic voting machine is $3,100 and require more maintenance.

Barring the 1996 glitch when Utah County had a problem with hanging chads, the system has proved relatively accurate and convenient enough that Provo and Orem used it for their municipal elections.

The system also was easier to operate for the poll workers, who are usually senior citizens.

But there are benefits that may make electronics worth the money. Electronic voting machines reduce the cost of printed election materials. With the Votamatic, you need to print a ballot book for each polling station. Electronic machines eliminate printing costs and give an option for large type and multiple languages.

Election officials wouldn't have to guess at how many ballot cards they need for an election. Since the ballots are electronic, there are always enough for everyone, regardless of turnout.

Punch-card ballots prevent blind people from casting votes without assistance, while electronic voting machines allow independence. They actually talk to the voter through a headset, and votes are cast using a simple telephone-style keypad.

But the best selling point may be accuracy. The punch-card system is only as good as the punch card itself. If the card isn't perfectly aligned in the voting machine, or if the voter doesn't completely punch out the chad, the vote won't be right.

Electronic voting is more accurate in that you need only touch a candidate's name. And you have a chance to review your final ions before locking in the vote. The paper trail verifying the result is reassuring.

While it doesn't completely eliminate error, the machines likely bring us closer than ever to elections in which all the votes are indeed counted.