Nicholas Pell
Jan 11, 2012
Featured

21st Century voting technology: Problems, promises and industry perspectives

The last 20 years have seen unprecedented advances in the realm of computer science and engineering. One area that remains remarkably traditional, however, is voting.

Most people still vote using paper ballots or old-fashioned lever systems. As the GOP primary kicks into high gear, many might rightly wonder why we still use such antiquated forms of technology for voting.

It’s not that there haven’t been attempts to update the technology; Computerized voting machines and Internet voting are two innovative attempts at bringing voting into the 21st Century. There are problems with both, however.

I contacted Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, one of the leading experts on electronic voting, and she explained to me that the reason voting has not been modernized is because, “Internet voting is utterly unsafe. There’s no way to secure the Internet.” She believes there are many concerns such as, "a multitude of ways the Internet can be hacked, including distributed denial of service [DDOS] attacks," that can effectively shut down voting, as well as more direct threats where, "coercive tactics can be used more easily when people vote at home.”

Aside from these blunt forms of interference, I inquired whether there were less obvious issues.  She zeroed in on accountability as an area that may not be readily apparent, because one fundamental problem with computerized voting is “you cannot, in a fully computerized system, have both total anonymity and total auditability.” This means that, with current technology, the so-called 'Australian ballot' (or secret ballot) is at odds with the ability to audit the process for reliability and fairness.

While Dr. Mercuri's criticisms had me practically completely convinced that computerized voting is far more harmful than beneficial, my view was tempered when I reached out to Dan Wallach, an associate professor of computer science at Rice University, who is more optimistic about the potential of computer voting. As associate director of A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections (ACCURATE), Wallach has examined the issue quite extensively. He assured me that current technology limitations do not necessarily indicate an insurmountable problem, because while, “it's true that the products on the market can't do this ... it's not true that computer science can't solve these problems.” In fact, during our discussion about ways in which voting technologists can troubleshoot potential issues, Wallach expressed, “computer scientists have made many strides in the science of voting. Machines are easier to audit, easier to catch if they're cheating, simpler to design. We have much better technologies. The challenge is getting these technologies commercialized.”

Electronic voting inherently comes with advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages:

·      Electronic systems can talk, providing benefits for the disabled and those who don’t speak English well.

·      Larger ballots do not lead to increased costs.

·      Your ballot can be tracked from your vote to the final count.

·      Multiple voting machines can all keep a copy of all votes to ensure accuracy and security. One crashed machine will not lose all votes.

Disadvantages include:

·      Expense. Even at $1000 apiece -- the low end for a voting machine -- this adds up quickly.

·      A greater margin of error. Older voters in particular have trouble with electronic voting, while the accessibility of paper ballots transcends race, class and education levels.

·      Disambiguating voter intent ranges from difficult to impossible given the absence of physical evidence like 'hanging chads' in Florida during the infamous 2001 Al Gore vs Bush presidential election, the Minnesota 2008 debacle or the recent Russian 140% voter turnout scandal. There is little opportunity to decide what someone 'meant' to do in the event of an error. 

Still, some, including Mercuri, are traditionalists when it comes to ballots. “Hand counted paper ballots are the gold standard in many eyes,” she expressed. This doesn’t bar necessarily bar innovation from the field of voting technology, it just changes where such innovation is aimed. When I asked Dr. Mercuri why future technology cannot overcome the pitfalls she outlined, she said, “Think of checks, bonds or bills. There are security mechanisms that make paper more secure. You shouldn’t be able to trace a ballot back to a voter, but you should be able to tell if alterations have been made. None of this is being adopted to paper ballots.” She further suggests publicly counting ballots on video.

While Wallach is more of a technological optimist, he admitted during our interview that there are some fundamental problems with computerized voting. The current machines are “obsolete from the day they were purchased and have become more obsolete since then.” One company controls approximately 75 percent of the market, charging between $3000 and $4000 for a glorified point-of-sale device. Such devices generally retail for between $1000 and $1500. The punchline? Many use Intel 486 processors, technology more at home in the late 1980s than in the 21st Century. Election officials often have precious little in the way of funds to spend on these technologies.

For their part, the companies have little to no incentive to improve technologies. The manufacturers and vendors are “beholden to election officials, not voters,” says Wallach. Election officials are, by and large, “not interested in voter security, and only marginally interested in usability. They want to get a quick count to give to the press so they can go home early.” Wallach admits that “there are a lot of election officials who are better than that, but there are an awful lot who aren’t.” Add to this an unwillingness to admit past mistakes -- namely obsolete, overpriced voting machines -- and the outlook for improved voting mechanisms is not sunny.

While many cryptographers, computer scientists and computer engineers are hard at work on voting machines of the future, there’s little in the way of political will to bring these to market. Unfortunately, there is little sign that in the future we’ll be voting more efficiently than how we currently do.

4 Comments
Alejandro FreixesJan 11, 2012
Mr. Pell presented two professional perspectives. Even the "optimistic" one openly acknowledges there are limitations. Considering how quickly technology evolves, dismissing the *potential* for industry R&D to solve cyber security and auditability concerns seems premature. While funding and research in this realm should be cautious, given the vital impact of voting on society and the economic costs involved, a balanced and logical approach seems better than a perspective that could be misconstrued as luddite zealotry. If there are specific facts (numbers, dates, names, etc.) that Mr. Pell inaccurately reported, I have no doubt he would fix them. However, to call the examination of technological possibilities "nonsensical false hopes" that lack fact-checking, seems anti-innovative at best.
RT MercuriJan 11, 2012
Fact-checking the so-called advantages that Mr. Pell cited would have been a good start. Had he done so more thoroughly, he might have been inclined to trash the entire concept of electronic voting, since it is indeed (now and in the future) a boondoggle.<br /> <br /> Articles of this sort, that purport to provide a balanced view, while presenting provably incorrect statements as fact, actually do more damage than good. For example, DARPA has plans to release some $30M for research on Internet Voting. Many academic computer scientists, perhaps even including Dan Wallach and some of his colleagues, will be at the head of the line to apply for these funds, even though they surely know that the Internet cannot possibly provide the security, transparency, and end-to-end auditability that are needed for public elections. This type of hypocrisy and greed are among the reasons that have led to the deployment and use of unsafe voting systems. Feeding the public with nonsensical false hopes only ensures that our tax dollars will continue to be squandered.<br /> <br /> R. Mercuri
Nicholas PellJan 11, 2012
I'm sort of confused by this response. My intention in writing this piece was to present a balanced account of the issues surrounding electronic vs. paper ballots. To that end, I even included innovations suggested by Dr. Mercuri regarding how to improve paper balloting. I further drew attention to present challenges in the field. <br /> <br /> While I wholeheartedly agree that there are difficult challenges ensuring both transparency and accountability with regard to electronic voting, I find it hard to believe that such challenges are insurmountable. In fairness, Dr. Mercuri knows more about this than I do, but then again, so does Mr. Wallach. <br /> <br /> As I expressed privately in an email, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would come out of this thinking electronic voting is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Little content seems to indicate that present technologies are up to the task. Indeed, if anything, I think this article presents electronic voting as a sort of boondoggle -- taxpayers are overcharged for ineffective services that don't deliver what they promise. <br /> <br /> I am, of course, always unhappy when an interview subject is displeased with an article. In this case, however, I'm not clear on what I could have done to please Dr. Mercuri, short of trashing the entire concept of electronic voting in toto.
RT MercuriJan 11, 2012
Wow, what an amazingly incorrect piece! <br /> <br /> Electronic voting machines are considerably MORE difficult to audit than traditional methods, since they can be programmed to delete their own code so that it is very hard (if not impossible) to catch if they are cheating.<br /> <br /> There is absolutely nothing simple in the design of a microprocessor-based system with millions of transistors. Dan's example of the older microprocessors as somehow obsolete is incorrect -- the less complicated devices have stood the test of time (we call it "debugged") and offer FEWER features that can be exploited to insert back-door attacks into the system.<br /> <br /> Larger ballots INCREASE both programming, setup, and pre-election testing costs on computers, as well as increase complexity in checking for correctness.<br /> <br /> It has been proven that ballot tracking using computers can be thwarted and spoofed -- what does it mater if the ballot is tracked if it is recorded incorrectly by the computer to begin with? -- so this is a false assurance.<br /> <br /> The same is true about multiple voting machines keeping copies -- computer scientists call this GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out -- if the ballot is incorrectly recorded on one machine it will be replicated with the same incorrectness on multiple others.<br /> <br /> What is actually obsolete, is the idea that self-auditing electronic voting systems are somehow secure or an improvement over paper-based methods. Heck, even Homer Simpson experienced a "vote flip" -- press for one candidate, the machine records your vote for someone else. This is no joke, it does happen. We even have a video showing machines being tested in a Pennsylvania certification where the vote flipped right before the eyes of the examiner -- guess what, the machines were passed and allowed to be purchased!<br /> <br /> And as for those talking voting machines -- well we've seen those do an audio vote flip too -- say one thing, record another (happens for the foreign language ballots as well). Unfortunately, the voter doesn't know it's happening.<br /> <br /> I continue to fail to understand how presumably intelligent people are able to convince themselves that somehow the computer, with all of its known complexity and flaws and viruses and glitches, is in any way capable of providing the transparency and independent auditability that is required for government elections. Perhaps it is because voting is really a religion, so faith-based electronic solutions will continue to be promoted, and writers will be hypnotized into spreading the fantasy that a new crop of devices, just around the corner, somehow will really will work as advertised. Dream on.<br /> <br /> I'm looking forward to reading Nicholas Pell's article on global warming.<br /> <br /> R. Mercuri
Related Articles
Nicholas Pell
Dec 28, 2011
Mind-reading technologies become reality with bioinformatics advances
Saying an innovation seems like science fiction is pretty much a cliché in 2012. However, it’s hard not to invoke... Read More