- The conference was crawling with scientists. But, the
scientific method was a no-show at last week's First NIST (National Institute
for Science and Technology) Symposium on Building Trust and Confidence
in Voting Systems in Gaithersburg, Maryland last week.
-
- There was no apparent interest in addressing a fundamental
question: After 115 years of Americans using voting machines, are any of
these contraptions (with or without paper printers) better, worse, or as
good as hand-counted paper ballots for accuracy, usability, and vulnerability?
-
- The recent avalanche of bad publicity, including reports
from Congress and universities warning about computerized voting machines,
plus a steady stream of voting machine "glitches" and irregularities,
have clearly shaken public confidence in America's voting systems. And
that has the elections industry rattled.
-
- Getting Americans to "trust" in new voting
technology was the focus of the conference. There was little discussion
about trusting voters with marking, casting, and counting the ballots,
even though recent studies in the limited category of "lost votes"
(overvotes and undervotes), show that hand-counted paper ballots, and therefore
- voters, are the best performers.
-
- "The difference between the best performing and
worst performing technologies is as much as 2 percent of ballots cast.
Surprisingly, (hand-counted) paper ballots÷the oldest technology÷show
the best performance." This is the finding of two Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) political science professors, Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere
and Dr. Charles Stewart III, in a September 25, 2002 study entitled, Voting
Technology and Uncounted Votes in the United States. This study was an
update of a previous CalTech/MIT study.
-
- There was also no discussion at the conference of "lost
ballots" - which occurs when voters fail to cast a ballot, even though
they go into the voting booth. And no discussion of "lost voters"
- voters who may not go to the polls because they dislike voting machines,
and may not vote by absentee ballot either, because of the extra effort
involved.
-
- The general presumption at the conference seemed to be
that, in the voting booth, machines perform better than humans... despite
evidence to the contrary.
-
- Dr. Avi Rubin gave an overview of the now infamous and
very faulty Diebold elections code that was left unsecured on the Internet
by the company. While Dr. Rebecca Mercuri and Dr. David Dill addressed
the question more directly. In formal presentations they described the
lack of integrity and security in paperless voting systems. They urged
the attachment of printers to touchscreen machines, so that voters could
verify their ballots.
-
- And although this system is a big step forward from paperless
touchscreens, the question remains... is it better than hand-cast hand-counted
paper ballots?
-
- Dill was asked what election officials are supposed to
do, since touchscreens that produce paper may not be widely available by
the 2004 election. Dill's simple reply, "They can always go back to
paper ballots." Sweet words to those who believe that the right to
vote belongs to the voter, not technology.
-
- And it was that very issue which was addressed toward
the end of the conference: Who is really voting - the voter or the technology?
Dr. Ronald Rivest (MIT) observed in a matter-of-fact manner, that technology
has replaced the voter in the actual process of marking, casting, and counting
the vote. He offered no justification for that state-of-affairs, but instead
suggested that adopting the latest technology was inevitable in any context.
-
- Rivest went on to say that confidence in election results
is more important than trust in any particular voting system. But, voters
may not buy that. In what contest would that view prevail? A horse race?
A football game? Bowling? Would Dr. Rivest play poker with a stacked deck?
If participants don't have confidence in the rules of the game, then the
losers will not likely accept the outcome.
-
- Although there was a small, but determined group of computer
experts and others who were supporting Mercuri, Dill, and Rubin, most of
the conference attendees were business reps, state elections directors
(some contemplating their next career move), and federal officials (most
of whom appeared to be on the side of paperless voting).
-
- It is worth noting and that there was no real discussion
of Internet voting, the most vulnerable of all the voting technologies
to vote fraud or technical failure. Overseas military and other civilians
will be able to vote on the Internet in 2004, courtesy of Accenture (the
former - and highly controversial - Andersen Consulting). Michigan Democrats
will also use the Internet for their presidential primary caucus. And,
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is promoting Internet voting through funding
of projects, such as The National Student/Parent Mock Election. Internet
voting proponents are most likely relieved that this technology is flying
under the public's radar, for now.
-
- Jim Dickson of the American Association of People with
Disabilities (AAPD), and Steven Booth from The National Federation of the
Blind (NFB), were at the conference lobbying hard for paperless electronic
voting. And that's their right, but the misinformation they pass along,
is not. Dickson gives the impression that blind voters can't vote privately
and independently without the use of touchscreens. But, simple low-tech
ballot templates and audiocassettes, which allow blind voters to do just
that, are in use around the world. Since the year 2000, Rhode Island has
made them available to the disabled. When Steve Booth was asked about his
experience with ballot templates, he said that he didn't know anything
about them. However, a NFB representative in Rhode Island told this writer,
"everyone (at NFB) knows about it."
-
- It is also irritating to see Dickson at conference after
conference, continue to claim that HAVA mandates that each voting precinct
have a touchscreen machine for the disabled, when HAVA also allows for
"other voting systems," which could include low-tech solutions,
such as ballot templates.
-
- Former International Foundation for Election Systems
(IFES) executive, Paul DeGregorio, was also at the conference. Internationally,
IFES promotes the use of ballot templates for the disabled. Which begs
the question, why do the leaders of organizations for the disabled in America
act as though they never heard of this low-tech option? DeGregorio is the
Bush Administration's lead man on the newly appointed Election Assistance
Commission (EAC), which will set the new voluntary federal standards. Some
voting rights activists are concerned that new HAVA standards may discourage
low-tech alternatives, such as ballot templates, in favor of the highly
vulnerable touchscreens and Internet voting system.
- Low-tech solutions to illiteracy and language barriers
were also M.I.A. (missing-in-action) at the NIST conference. Speaker after
speaker suggested that only touchscreens could easily accommodate voters
with different languages, when it is common knowledge among voting experts
that this problem is easily handled by simply assigning numbers to candidates.
Voters come to the polls already knowing the number of their candidate.
Yet, once again the conference seemed unaware or uninterested in a low-tech
approach.
-
- However, not all was lost. Some very nice folks from
New Hampshire were there. Twenty percent of their voters still use hand-counted
paper ballots. Maybe the Granite State will lead this nation back to the
election sanity. Meanwhile, there's a massive increase in absentee voting
nationwide. In the 2003 California Recall election, 30% of voters used
absentee ballots. The state of Oregon conducts mail-in voting only, and
22 states allow absentee voting for any reason. And although the public's
shift to absentee voting is certainly not a good thing in terms of voting
security, it is sending a message to election officials...
-
- Voters are choosing paper in growing numbers. And that
speaks volumes about trust in America's voting technology.
-
-
- Lynn Landes is the publisher of <http://www.ecotalk.org/>EcoTalk.org
and a news reporter for <http://www.dutv.org/>DUTV in Philadelphia,
PA. Formerly Lynn was a radio show host for <http://www.wdvr.org/>WDVR
in New Jersey and a regular commentator for a <http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/index.shtml>BBC
radio program. She can be reached at (215) 629-3553 / <mailto:lynnlandes@earthlink.net>lynnlandes@earthlink.net.
|
