Windows IT Pro is the leading independent community for IT professionals deploying Microsoft Windows server and client applications and technologies.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


November 09, 2000

I Want Computerized Elections!


RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More News and Analysis Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!

On election night, my TV remote was in danger of giving off smoke because I was flipping through channels at a maniacal speed, looking for some definitive information about the results of the US presidential race. When I finally went to bed, Al Gore had apparently won. The television broadcasters had given him the electoral votes he needed, thanks to the state of Florida.

When I turned on the TV the next morning, I learned that we didn’t know who our next president would be. I collected my email and received an interesting message from an acquaintance in Moscow who reported that the Russian press was fascinated by the fact that the US population didn’t yet know the name of our next president. My friend said that the overriding theme in the Russian reports about the election was that the United States is the most computerized country in the world and we still couldn’t get accurate election results in a timely fashion. Good point. Why isn’t the US election process computerized? Plenty of methods exist to implement this function in a reasonable—including financial considerations—manner.

I don’t mean diving right in to Internet voting; I mean replacing paper ballots with computers, and either replacing voting machines with computers or attaching a computer device to the machines to send the numbers to a central computer. Those big, clunky voting machines cost a fortune to buy, warehouse, maintain, and move in and out of polling places twice a year. Just the cost involved in setting up the ballot choices in those machines would probably pay for a host of computer devices.

Generally, we count votes by having election workers open the results pane of the machine and yell the totals to another election worker who writes the numbers on a form. Another worker from a different political party supervises each worker. The forms are delivered to a local voting official by car, bus, horse and buggy, or whatever (some cities use police officers who must go to all the polling places, pick up the forms, and drive them to a central location, which probably makes burglars very happy). A T1 or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) would be faster, cheaper, and more efficient—so would a slow modem.

And why don't we open absentee ballots on election day morning and enter them into a computer so that the totals are available when the other votes are counted? Some states don't open absentee ballots at all unless the election results for a particular race are close (the state legislature usually determines the definition of "close"). The whole process is just too much trouble. Wouldn't it be nice (and fair) if the absentee voters who live in those states and go to all the trouble to apply for, fill out, and mail their absentee votes actually got to vote, even if the race wasn't "close."

And just think how computers would cure poorly designed voting ballots that cause confusion. Currently, voters who punch buttons to the right of the name they like might inadvertently vote for the candidate to the right of the button, resulting in a vote for the opposition or for a candidate from a minor party. Having the ability to highlight the candidate’s name on a computer screen would solve the problem.

If we can deliver numbers from computer to computer to computer, maybe the media would stop using exit polls to announce election winners. Exit poll responses are not the same as counting votes, and their use is a disservice. By hiring experts who guess, the media is creating news, not reporting it.

And, maybe displaying an accurate vote count to the US population, especially in a close presidential election, would force us to look at the Electoral College system. Perhaps it's time to reengage in the debate that took place between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in the days when our country was developing its Constitution. That debate, a fascinating study of diverse political philosophies and a harbinger of the "states rights" debate that would grow to increasing proportions in ensuing years, is worth examining.

I bet that anyone who reads Windows 2000 Magazine probably has enough knowledge to write a simple script or program that logs on a user, locks down the computer, opens an installed election software program, then shuts down the program so the next person coming into the booth can't see the previous user's vote. In fact, you can probably automate the curtain opening and closing (think InfraRed).

If you can come up with such a program or script, send it to me at kivens@win2000mag.com. I’ll award a prize to a person picked from random out of the pool of accurate programs (accurate means the solutions look as if they’ll work). Originality, humor, and cleverness are appreciated, but not necessary to win.

End of Article



Reader Comments
Great. Then the election would be decided by the most clever hacker. How could you insure the integrity of a vote coming from thousands of computers being accessed by millions of voters that would have to be online for an entire day? Also consider that every terrorist group and goverment hate group would have four years to work on hacking the vote.

Larry Friddle November 10, 2000


Your article demonstrates you have not given any serious consideration to the problems created by computerized elections. Trendy fluff at the most.

Gordon M Smith November 10, 2000


The voting machine you describe is not the standard throughout the US and is not
thius years problem. It does enable vote fraud, however, and has in the past if not
this year. By now you surely know the FLA situation was purely artificial as those
19000 voters were given new ballots to use. What's the rush to announce the
results before all balots are counted. I would not allow absentee ballots not
received on or before election day, existing best practices do the job from there.

As to a new System, I know how to do it, but first want to look into the patent
situation, before writing it up.

John Marble November 10, 2000


I don't think so. The public needs a system they can believe, trust, understand, and preferrably involves visible physical action. Well-dressed losing officals would be just as quick with a "Forbin Project" analogy as they were with the "Wag the Dog" scenario.

Losers would level charges of hacking and cracking that would be more credible--and likely--than what we're hearing now.

Steve Lipps November 11, 2000


I agree with Ms. Ivens in that we need some type of standard computerized election process. I also agree with the previous statements of the other submitters that it could lend itself to fraud/hacking/cracking or whatever you want to call it. But we must think progressively about change and making the current voting process better. The problems suggested are valid concerns and must be scrutinized.

I see this as a great opportunity for someone to come up with an idea to make this a reality.

Dennis Smith November 14, 2000


For security a simple system is always better. I would suggest something along the lines of the ATM machines. We pretty much know how to secure them. Most people are familiar with how they work so that should ease some fears. We can design a "Is this correct?" screen to reassure the user. The bottom line is that human nature or whatever if there is a way to defraud a system it will be found. What I would like to see is some uniformity which might possibly lead to fewer voter errors.

A. M. King November 15, 2000


No, No, No...You can collect the votes with a computer, but you cannot have a network. Each voting booth would be a touchscreen computer with a computer in a sealed box. The box would be sealed in the presence of both major parties and unsealed the same way. You cannot transmit votes over a network or phone line, it is too vulnerable to spoofing. You transport the boxes back to the county board site where each has its votes downloaded to a central computer, again NOT networked, and in the presence of both major parties.

Mark Stang November 15, 2000


In Brazil we have fully computerized elections. You must go to your designated precinct (there is not absentee voters and voting is not optional), and a machine running VM/386 (not DOS or Windows!) gets your ballot and stores it in a diskette, a flash memory card, and two hard drives. (You must present your voter ID and sign a list). The ballots are counted in a few hours, and redundant, cryptographically safe ways of sending the results to a central location that summarizes the ballots are used to minimize the effects of hacking. The major complaining of Brazilians about this system is that you, as a voter, can not verify if your ballot is secret or not, because it is necessary to key your voter id in the machine prior to voting. The supplier of the machines swears that secrecy of your vote is warranted, because it simply increments the counter for your candidate, but the source code is not freely available for inspection, what raises some doubts.

Edson E. Watanabe November 16, 2000


Good idea. But who says the computers have to be ONLINE to do this function? Why not enter the information into a local database, then compile the info later?!? Or, for those that want some physical evidence, use a printer function to print the voter's selections. No worse than what's used now.

Mike W November 16, 2000


I agree with other posters, I would never agree to internet based voting system, no way to prove security but...
First lets get a common system for ALL the states. Proprietary, based on a closed private network NOT physically connected to the internet. It should be a simple touchpad, you just tap your vote. We should also investigate a better voting method. The plurality system does not lend itself to multi party elections we should use the Approval vote system. Just my 2 cents worth

Shawn Underwood November 16, 2000


 See More Comments  1   2 

You must be a registered user or online subscriber to comment on this article. Please log on before posting a comment. Are you a new visitor? Register now




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
Battery Life Issues Almost Certainly Not Windows 7's Fault

While Microsoft is still investigating a notebook battery life issue that was supposedly caused by Windows 7, some interesting trends have emerged. ...

Confirmed: Battery Life Issues Not Windows 7's Fault

Microsoft on Monday issued a lengthy statement about the recent Windows 7 battery controversy, echoing my assessment from earlier in the day, but backing it up with hard, cold evidence. Put simply, Windows 7 is not responsible for any battery life issues ...

Getting your iPhone to Sync with Exchange 2003

Follow these steps to use an iPhone with Exchange. ...


Related Articles Computerized Voting Can Work

Related Events Deep Dive into Windows Server 2008 R2 presented by John Savill

Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

News and Analysis eBooks Getting Maximum Performance from Your Web-based Applications

Business Process Automation - Managing Cost in Your Enterprise

Understanding and Leveraging Code Signing Technologies

Related News and Analysis Resources Introducing Left-Brain.com, the online IT bookstore
Looking for books, CDs, toolkits, eBooks? Prime your mind at Left-Brain.com

Discover Windows IT Pro eLearning Series!
Clear & detailed technical information and helpful how-to's, all in our trademark no-nonsense format


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro DevProConnections IT Job Hound
Left-Brain.com Technology Resource Directory asp.netPRO ITTV Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 © 2010 Penton Media, Inc. Terms of Use | Privacy Statement