I am very frustrated at the level of confusion about the viability of electronic voting and what it means for past and future elections.
Many IT professionals have written at some length about electonic voting, its shortcomings and its advantages. If electronic voting is done right, it can be just as trustworthy as any other balloting system. There is no reason for complete Luddism.
There is, however, an enormous problem with the system as it exists today.(MUCH MORE)
Universally, they conclude that the system must include an auditable paper trail--usually referred to as a voter-verified paper trail. Electronic journals are simply unfit for the application of electoral democracy because they are too easily modified. A paper journal that can't be verified by the voter would be completely valueless.
Additionally, the code should be public domain and the machines randomly recounted in a statistically significant manner in every election to ensure the electronic results match the paper results. It is, after all, the very machinery with which we construct our democracy.
The problems posed by e-voting have been solved. A thousand times over, by people who do this sort of thing professionally. But still certain elements of society seem to want to keep the deficient machines in place. Which only invites the question: Why?
For those of you looking for the argument, I've distilled it thus:
- An election is valid only if it is trustworthy.
- An election is trustworthy only if it is conducted using trustworthy voting machines.
- A voting machine that cannot be audited is not trustworthy.
- It is possible to implement a voting machine that can be audited without significant added cost.
Therefore: An election is valid only if it is conducted with auditable voting machines and cost is not a legitimate excuse to do otherwise.
Now, explain to me why this didn't happen. Who supports the implementation of insecure voting technologies, and why?
This is the question that is driving the suspicion of fraud in the last few election cycles. And it will only grow like a cancer as the use of insecure technology spreads. Put another way, there exist the means, motive and opportunity to do it right or to do it wrong. A good detecive knows that given a crime, you've got a suspect. So it's no wonder, now, that people are looking for proof of the crime, and consider the results of recent elections invalid.
Implementation of voter-verifiable paper trails should be the highest concern to anyone concerned with the democratic system, and in particular for the progressive-left. Without trustworthy elections, what sense is there in fighting politically for things like clean air, equal rights, and living wages?
I maintain that the left should move rapidly to ensure that only secure voting methods can be implemented in their elections. Ballot initiatives and state and local legislation must incorporate only sound methodologies and no corporate-inspired cut corners and back room deals. Our elections must begin with sound principles of engineering and design and let the machine manufacturers implement those principles to their hearts' content. Dubious engineering and corporate-elections cronyism are the most dire threat facing our democracy.
In short, there should be a clear division between the development of the engineering specifications and the implementations. I don't care if the people implementing the specifications are partisan, as long as the specifications are robust and trustworthy. It's as simple as that.