Electronic Voting--a Bad Idea
A dramatic example of the misuse of technology is e-voting (electronic voting), the use of computer technology for voting. We are accustomed to the successful use of computers in numerous data processing situations, e.g., ATMs (automated teller machines), where a lot of money could be lost if cheating were easy. But election systems are quite different. Unlike ATMs, where we can easily check to see if the transactions are correctly reflected in our monthly bank statements, we have no way to determine if an e-voting system counts our votes correctly.
There are no feasible methods for ensuring that the software and/or hardware of an e-voting system (of any type) does not have clandestine cheating features. So-called "certifying agencies", private companies that report to the machine vendors, do not even pretend to look for cheating features. They confine themselves to looking for design faults that jeopardize accuracy, and don't do even this very well. Despite the crucial role in our democracy played by voting technology, the companies manufacturing voting machines are permitted to keep their designs secret.
Schemes for using random sampling to check the accuracy of computer-based voting systems are almost never carried out properly, and no state has laws providing for appropriate measures to be taken if sampling indicates error or fraud.
Internet voting has all the dangers of ordinary e-voting, plus additional easy opportunities for fraud and coercion. Buying votes becomes simple, as is intimidation of voters by, for example, employers or spouses. Voting by mail is similarly very vulnerable to many fraudulent techniques.
In the real world, hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) is the only known vote processing scheme that can be executed so as to ensure against significant fraud. If Boss Tweed controls the polls, then serious cheating can occur regardless of the level of the level of technology. An e-voting system, rather than deterring Tweed would have been regarded by him as a labor saving device. HCPB systems are widely used in most other industrialized countries, and in parts of Maine, New Hampshire, and several other states. We do not read about voting scandals in connection with HCPB polling places.
While financial considerations should not weigh heavily when we are discussing a process vital to our democracy, it is interesting that, due to the low duty cycle (voting machines are rarely used more than a few days each year), e-voting is more expensive than HCPB [8].
Tools for Big Brother:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
