Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
ETHICAL AND
SOCIETAL ISSUES
Counts
Imagine having to design or choose an input device that will satisfy
every person's needs: the young, elderly, intelligent, illiterate,
sighted, or blind. Then imagine that this device has to provide a
100 percent guarantee that it is easy to use for all and collects
accurate data—exactly what the user wants to enter. Sound
challenging? That's the struggle that countries around the world
are facing as they continue to create the perfect voting machine.
As the technology revolution races ahead, those responsible
for voting systems are trying to harness technology to streamline
the voting process. Submitting paper ballots now seems prehis-
toric in this day of movie downloads and cell phone text messag-
ing. It was only natural that the touch screen would make its way
into the voting process—with disastrous results. Touch screen
machines, also called Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) units,
allow the voter to press the name of the person for whom they
want to vote. Each vote is either stored in the machine's storage
device to be collected later and batch processed, or sent directly to
a central database over a private network.
The use of touch screen machines has led to numerous
questionable elections and accusations of scandal. The most
prominent are the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elec-
tions, where the close results were questioned due to voting
irregularities caused by electronic voting machines.
To overcome the problems with touch screen voting machines,
many experts feel that a paper backup of a citizen's vote should be
generated along with the electronic vote. By providing a “paper
trail” of votes, questionable elections can be easily checked. At the
time of this writing, 12 U.S. states still have no paper record
requirements.
Many voting administrators have given up on touch screen vot-
ing systems altogether. In the 2008 primary presidential elections,
the state of New Hampshire relied on optical mark recognition
(OMR) technology for their voting. Voters fill in the circle next to a
candidate's name on a card. The voter's card is scanned to record
the votes, and is filed away as a backup in case a recount is need-
ed. Some precincts in New Hampshire provide voters with simple
paper ballots that are counted by hand at the polling place. Visually
impaired and disabled can use a touch-tone phone to place their
votes. In this way, New Hampshire uses several methods to collect
votes.
Other states are experimenting with other systems. Oregon
holds its votes by mail. Citizens do not have to travel to a precinct
center to cast their votes; instead, they simply mark their ballots,
stamp them, and put them in the mailbox. The state claims record
voting turnouts and little strife.
Some states seem committed to touch screen systems.
Despite a report describing several methods of compromising the
vote records of its voting machines, the Crawford County, Ohio,
county commissioner tells the citizens that there is nothing to
worry about. Since only officials from the county are provided with
access codes to the inner workings of the machines, the system
should be secure.
The voting machine debate extends beyond the United States
to every other voting country. In Germany, a group of computer
experts collected signatures to request that a court grant an
injunction stopping the use of electronic voting machines. They
wanted the system switched to a paper ballot system. They argue
that the system had security flaws that allowed a hacker to manip-
ulate voting outcomes. The group contended that the government
didn't have the technical understanding to ensure an accurate vote
count using the electronic system.
As the search for the perfect voting machine continues, one
thing is clear: Collecting data into a system that is verifiably accu-
rate, using easy and fast methods, can be a challenge. Security
experts put forth three requirements for touch screen machines:
They should produce a voter-verifiable paper trail, use software
that is open to examination by the public, and provide verifiable bal-
lots to safeguard against machine failure.
Discussion Questions
1.
Do you think that one method of collecting data into a vot-
ing system can satisfy all the different types of voters? Or
are multiple methods required?
2.
What would be your concerns about elections by mail,
such as the system used in Oregon?
Critical Thinking Questions
1.
Of the systems described in this feature, which would you
most like to use? In other words, describe your ideal voting
method.
2.
What are the security risks of your ideal voting method?
SOURCES:
Weiss, Todd, “As primary season ramps up, an e-voting snapshot,”
Computerworld, January 8, 2008,
www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9056098.
Smith, Jane, “Officials confi-
dent voting machines pose no problems,” The Meadville Tribune, January 12,
Jeremy, “German activists move to block e-voting,” NetworkWorld, January 8,
t
o-block.html?fsrc=rss-security.
Kim, Myung, “Most clerks pushing for mail
ballots,” Rocky Mountain News, January 12, 2008,
110
