Electronic Voting Systems: Technology and the Voting Process
- Part 1

Joshua Salwitz works in the customs brokerage industry and is a full-time student at Whatcom Community College.

Part 1

As we all understand by now, the 2000 U.S. Presidential election was a voting machine/ballot nightmare. What unfolded after election night 2000 was a month full of recounts, disputes and litigation. During that month we all learned a number of new terms, such as hanging chads, dimpled chads and even pregnant chads. We learned these terms referred to the punch-outs used on ballots, like the ones in Florida that were at the center of all the controversy. The media was filled with pictures of county election officials scrutinizing ballots, trying to determine the intent of voters when the ballot had not been punched properly and/or completely.

The outcome of the 2000 election was that, for the first time since 1888, the winner of the popular vote was not elected to the Presidency of the United States.1 All of America, and in fact the world, had a front row seat for what many people have considered to be one the most poorly handled elections in our history. After this incident, there was a significant call for election reform from many different individuals, organizations and even from within our own government.

In response to the call for election reform, on October 29, 2002, the Help America Vote Act was signed into law. The “Help America Vote Act of 2002” (HAVA) contains, among other things, provisions for easing the voter registration process, allowing for provisional ballots to be cast if registration cannot be confirmed at the time of voting, and gives states more control over the election process, control which was previously in the hands of the individual counties.2

The most controversial portion of the Help America Vote Act, though, comes in the form of a federal mandate, which requires states to modernize and computerize the voting process. It’s not the modernization requirement that is drawing concern, but rather the electronic voting machines intended for modernization that are at the center of the controversy.

There is another important Presidential election coming just around the corner, and the states have invested heavily in implementing these new voting systems. Yet there is significant concern from computer scientists, scholars and citizens about the usage of computer-based voting systems. With the recent flood of media coverage surrounding these systems, we should examine the following issues to determine what the concerns are and if they are well founded and valid: what benefits do these electronic voting systems offer, what are the problems with the systems being installed and why are they causing so much concern, and finally, are there alternatives to these systems?

Before I address the issues, I must detail how the systems function to provide a basic understanding of the technical aspects of how the voting machines operate. This will ensure that we have a common foundation of knowledge from which to work.

There are a number of electronic voting machine manufacturers that supply voting systems to states, but three dominate the majority of the marketplace. Those three manufacturers are ES&S, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and Diebold Election Systems. Of the three, Diebold controls the majority of the market. It’s estimated that 80 percent of the votes that will be cast in the next U.S. election will be counted by Diebold supplied equipment.3 While each vendor’s system is proprietary, they all function in a similar manner. Because of Diebold’s ubiquitous presence, their systems will be considered the de facto standard and used as an example throughout this paper.

There are multiple methods for implementing the changes to the voting process, as mandated by the Help America Vote Act, but two are predominant. The first method involves the use of paper ballots and an optical scanning machine. Voters mark off their choices on paper ballots and the ballots are then fed into the scanning computer. The computer then records the vote totals from the ballot as it is scanned. It should be noted that the system only records the vote count from each of the ballots and not the actual vote itself. This means that the system will not record details, such as ballot number 433 voted for a particular candidate; it will only record the total number of votes that were cast for a candidate.

Once the polling center has been closed, a special ballot is run through the machine which instructs it to stop reading ballots and begin the reporting process. The system outputs a receipt which shows total votes counted and the total votes each candidate received. If the numbers all match up correctly, this receipt is then signed off by local election officials and the memory card from each system is sent to a central location where a system called the master tabulator again counts the votes that were cast.

These numbers are then verified against the results obtained at the precinct level. If the numbers coincide, then the election is certified and the results become official.4 If the numbers do not match properly, the local election officials will begin the process of recounting the ballots and auditing the systems used to tally the votes.

The second method involves the use of a touch screen-based system or direct recording electronic devices, DREs. These systems are generally composed of a personal computer running a special version of Microsoft Windows software and the manufacturer’s proprietary vote tabulation software. Voters cast their votes by touching an on-screen box next to their candidate of choice. The system records their vote and, similar to the optical scanning systems, stores the vote information on a memory card.

After the precinct has closed, the votes are tabulated in much the same manner as the optical scanning systems. The systems print a receipt, which includes the total of votes cast and the number of votes for each candidate. Election officials sign off on this receipt and the cards are transported to the central tabulator for final certification.3 If the numbers from the precinct printout match the count by the central tabulator, the results are certified and deemed official.

Now that we have an understanding of how the systems work, let’s examine what the benefits of using these systems are. Many of the requirements that are laid out in the Help America Vote Act are seen as benefits for most citizens. These include: making voting more accessible for all voters, especially for those who are handicapped; helping reduce instances of voter error, such as overvoting and undervoting; and providing faster and more efficient methods of tabulating election results.

There are benefits that are realized by the state election departments as well, such as having a lower total cost of ownership, being easier to manage than paper systems, and being more accommodating of last minute changes to ballots.5 It’s also hoped that the use of electronic voting machines will speed the process of voting. As an example, some of the parliamentary governments in the European Union use electronic voting systems. It was found that the average voting time went down from eight to nine minutes, pre-voting machine, to 30 seconds after they were adopted.6

All of these are very positive benefits. And I’m sure everyone would appreciate an easier, faster voting experience. With all of these benefits, then, why has there been so much controversy surrounding the use of these systems? There are a number of different reasons, which I will break down into two categories. First are the technical issues, which relate to how the systems operate; this includes both hardware- and software-related issues. The second category relates specifically to the persons behind the systems and how they impact voter confidence. §

Next Month: Voting Machine Controversies.