Victor Landa: Vote verification a matter of trust

Victor Landa   San Antonio Express-News    27 June 2005

Here's a paradox not easily sorted out: On the day I voted in the recent mayoral runoff election, nearly all the voters in line with me at my precinct complained about the paper ballots used instead of the electronic voting machines.

Yet one month earlier, during the regular election at the same precinct, people complained about the lack of a paper trail that could verify their vote.

People are hard to please; it's even harder to get people to trust. The common concern, though, is the perception of competence.

The complaint about paper versus electronic ballots was that millions of dollars had been spent to purchase and implement the electronic voting machines, only to have them kept in storage when they were needed the most. In place of the computers, the previous bubble-in system was dusted off and put back in use. It's been reported that city officials requested the bubble-in ballots because it offered a savings of around $300,000. And the county complied.

Of course, we now know that more people voted in the runoff than in the regular election and the savings may have been lost. But no one will remember that. What voters will remember is the inconsistency. This brings me back to the matter of trust and paper trails.

The problem with voting technology has nothing to do with the capacity to verify votes; rather, it has to do with the public's general distrust of the electoral process. Electronic voting machines aren't tamperproof and the slightest crack in the system turns into a fault line in public perception. Voters want a voting process that is airtight, beyond scrutiny, transparent, faultless. It's a matter of trust, and paper trails or hackerproof systems are merely accessories.

It would make voters feel secure if they could walk out of the voting booth with a paper verification of their vote or if there were paper verification left behind for future reference. But couldn't the same hackers who would manipulate a voting machine also be able to manipulate an attached printer? Voting machines are not linked to the Internet so any tampering would have to occur locally and systematically. Where is the security, if not in the voter's own sense of belief?

This is a tricky situation because, with that said, isn't the voter's trust precisely what we're looking for? We abhor the Florida "chad" fiasco, so we move to a technologically advanced system. But we distrust that system as well because it has faults. Or do we? Isn't it people we distrust?

The electronic systems mandated by federal decree eliminate the nasty chad problem, but they don't pass the smell test. Imagine a voting printer running low on toner, leaving a smear or a smudge where there should have been a recorded vote. What's the difference between a hanging chad and a smudge?

I remember the old click-and-handle voting booths. The votes were recorded somewhere inside the machine like a turnstile at an amusement park. If there was a recount, the votes could be read around the back of each machine. There was a sense of permanence when you flipped the switch because it felt sturdy and real. But even those machines were notoriously prone to partisan mischief.

Last week, the U.S. Senate began hearings concerning electronic voting machines. These are the first hearings into what are already being called VVPATs ? voter-verifiable paper audit trails. As such, this will be the first time that the fault line in the voting public's perception will be under a national spotlight.

And already there are problems. The makeup of the witnesses scheduled to appear at the hearing is said to favor the paperless machines. Those who favor a paper trail smell a rat ? and this was merely the opening week of testimony. A point of major concern is the fact that with or without a paper trail, blind voters have no way of verifying their choice. So the idea is being floated that a voice verification system be added as well.

If there is no way to reliably verify votes aren't we all, in essence, blind? That brings us, full-circle, to the issue of trust.