Article

Electronic election systems gets pummeled, but the industry refuses to go down for the count

Diebold division takes big hit as critics, proponents debate the risks and rewards of letting voters' fingers do the polling.

June 20, 2004 by

Electronic election systems are suffering a nationwide credibility gap, a grievous matter for an industry that stands to receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to help bring America's electoral system into the modern age.

Critics in California, Florida, Ohio, Maryland, Indiana and other states have sharply questioned the reliability and accuracy of the machines, as some firms allegedly have not certified their software and hardware with state officials.

Company representatives rebut the charge by saying most election officials give them a strong thumbs-up.

Still, the criticism is taking its toll. Industry leader Diebold reported this month its Election Systems division was the only poor performer during the first quarter; the company cut its revenue forecast for 2004 in the division to $85 million to $90 from well over $100 million.

In California, election officials said they discovered flaws in Diebold's touchscreen machines in four counties that may have resulted in some voters being turned away from the polls in the March primary election. Officials are recommending a ban on touchscreen voting in those counties.

David Bear, spokesman for Diebold Election Systems, said the company's e-voting systems are reliable as proven by "hundreds and hundreds" of non-problematic elections across the nation.

Bear added that groups representing disabled American voters have given the systems thumbs up.

But while critics aim to slow or halt the spread of e-voting, other groups are clamoring for it. Earlier this month, the National Federation of the Blind filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Ohio for holding off on plans to install e-voting systems in 31 counties for the November presidential election, reported the Toledo Blade.

"We've been very patient, not just in Ohio but all over," said James Gashel, a federation spokesman, in an interview with the Blade. "Computer technology is making it feasible for people to vote independently and secretly regardless of whether they can see to do it. I'm 57 years old, and I've never been able to vote in secret."

Bear said that by and large touchscreen voting is a vast improvement over other means to cast ballots.

"The machines eliminate the concept of over-voting, and virtually eliminate under-voting," he said. "The machines remind the voter when they fail to cast a ballot in a certain race."

Electronic voting rolled up strong track record, industry says

The electronic elections industry has a strong track record borne out over the past four presidential elections, said industry spokesman Bob Cohen. He said widespread media coverage of allegations about the shortcomings of certain machines has blown them out of proportion.

While many have composed theories of what could go wrong with the new breed of self-service machines, Cohen said, most of those theories are not based in reality.

"It's a new technology, a new industry, and the critics are maybe looking for perfection," he said. "It's an environment that involves not just technology, but also processes and people. It's a real challenge."

Hart InterCivic seems to be weathering the media storm unruffled.

"We're all painted with the same broad brush," said Michelle Shafer, communications director for the electronic elections solutions company in Austin, Texas. "But we've been in business since 1912, and we have a strong commitment to this industry."

Shafer said she understands critics' concern for security of votes to ensure accuracy and to prevent tampering.

"Those are legitimate concerns, and we totally understand them," she said. "Security is paramount to us and we've always believed in continuous improvement and that no system is perfect. Besides security for the machines, there are other security protections involved, such as the human kind and procedural kind."

Shafer said Hart InterCivic machines build in countless security safeguards. Contrary to some claims, the machines are not connected to the network and have no programmable devices at the polling place. In addition, they have no Windows operating systems but do have three physically separate redundant areas for storage.

Critics have called for voter-verifiable paper ballots to be used in conjunction with electronic ballot casting. Hart InterCivic is testing a prototype to perform that function, but Shafer added, "There are plenty of audit trails in place already."

But, she said, "When you add paper other potential problems arise, such as printers getting jammed up."

Legislation funnels billions to states to upgrade voting

Although they're been around for years, electronic voting systems really hit the nation's radar following the presidential election debacle of 2000. Congress got into the act, passing the Help America Vote Act, which will funnel $3.9 billion in federal aid to the states through early 2006. The money will be used to throw out outmoded punch-card and lever voter machines and replace them with efficient systems.

Scores of election jurisdictions now prefer electronic voting-Cohen, the industry spokesman put the number at 20 percent, which is expected to grow as more of the HAVA money finds its way to the states.

The National Association of Secretaries of State said HAVA has four main requirements:

• Implement a system that notifies voters if they overvote, and gives them the opportunity to correct their ballots
• Utilize a voting system that produces a permanent paper record with a manual audit capability
• Provide disability access equal to the level of access, privacy and independence available to other voters
• Define uniform standards for what constitutes a vote on each type of voting equipment used in the state

Bear said the industry is helping the states to comply with those requirements, and helping to ensure that voters are enfranchised.

"The criticism of our industry has caused fear in the minds of the average voter," he said. "But still their acceptance levels of our systems are very high."