Do Voting Machines Improve The Electoral Process?
A voting machine can be defined as a mechanical device for recording and counting votes mechanically. It was from the Chartists in the United Kingdom that the first weighty proposal to employ voting machines in elections came in 1838. Over 150 years have passed since the voting machines were first used; they still haven’t managed to win the trust of more than a couple of dozen nations. Even advanced countries like Germany and Netherlands have banned the use of electronic voting machines in polls in their countries. Countries like India, on the other hand, have not only caught a fancy with these machines but have also legalized their use.
Does the fear of electronic voting machines spring from the ignorance of the general public about them or is it genuine?
Electronic Voting Machines are a step forward
In his article in the journal Science, Tel Selker, former head of the MIT media lab, wrote that there was a lot of evidence to support that electronic voting machines had outperformed all other methods that had ever been used in the polls.
On the involvement of private corporations in the election procedures, the National Academy of Science published a report giving clarifications. The report said administrating elections has never been a government’s monopoly. Private political associations have always been involved in providing assistance in one way or another. The reasons for this involvement of private partners include reduced costs and more responsiveness without compromising the fundamental values.
Michael Shamos of Carnegie Mellon University writes in his paper Paper v. Electronic Voting Records – An Assessment; 2004 that because electronic voting machines can’t be accessed by internet it is only a far-fetched speculation that these machines can be hacked to favour a particular candidate or political party.
Initial heavy investment in the electronic voting machines easily compensates for the investment in the paper and ballot boxes in the long run. This results in a less costly system without compromising quality. Lesser costs of holding elections mean more countries in Africa can move towards democracy.
Cathy Cox’s July 2003 report Touch the Future of Voting: Georgia’s Guide to Election Reform cites a study conducted by the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government. Eight hundred people were surveyed in the study and 97% of them said they didn’t have a problem casting their votes. This establishes the fact that electronic voting machines are easier to use.
Another survey by the Registrar of Voters, California reported on 23 March 2004 that close to 70% of the people who had used electronic voting machines had confidence in them. The report also said that more than 96.7% voters in the United States held the opinion that the electronic voting system was convenient.
Using electronic voting machines shows concern for linguistic minorities in a country. Ballot papers are usually printed in the only one language but voting machines can simultaneously give instructions in multiple languages. This reduces the chances of minorities being marginalized.
According to a voting machines manufacturer ‘Sequoia Voting Systems’: it is only a myth that senior citizens aren’t comfortable with these new machines. The company said because of the simplicity of casting a ballot senior citizens are among the biggest supporters of electronic voting machines.
Poll workers are trained thoroughly about how to use electronic machines and the training manuals are all written in an easy to understand format; therefore, most of the questions raised on the ability of poll workers to conduct polls in a correct manner are unfounded.
Manufacturers provide the polling stations with their technical staff to deal with any technical problems. The fears that any technical hindrances can cause widespread disruption are not entirely true.
Electronic Voting Machines are flawed
Michael D. Byrne, associate professor at Rice University, argues that it’s only been assumed that electronic voting machines would be better than the traditional methods. He said in his presentation Electronic Voting Machines versus Traditional Methods: Improved Preference, Similar Performance, April 2008; that electronic voting machines hadn’t been found to be better on performance than traditional methods.
Bev Harris’ book Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st century brings out an unprecedented consequence our business culture: mergers and acquisitions. The writer cites the frenzy of this phenomenon during the 1990s when business alliances formed left only a handful of big corporations in charge over our polls.
The 2003 report of Congressional Research Service, Election Reform and Electronic Voting Systems (DREs): Analysis of Security Issues reported that because internet connections are so ubiquitous, that the chances that likely that organizations may be unaware of their existence in at some crucial junctions thus making voting machines susceptible to hacker attacks.
Policy makers often argue that the heavy initial investment compensates for the investment in paper and ballot boxes in the long run, but this argument doesn’t take into account the upgradation charges and maintenance costs. The money spent on software upgradation, batteries and the skilled staff employed to verify the working of each machine turns out to be significantly more than traditional methods.
Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project’s July 2001 report titled Voting: What is and what could be claimed that using the machines is often confusing and most of the time people find it difficult to figure out how to register their votes. The problem with the voting machines is that some of the interfaces are more responsive and many pages pass by without the voter even noticing them and this creates ambiguity.
Thad E. Hall, University of Utah and R Michael Alvarez, Caltech released an article American Attitudes about Electronic Voting: Results of a National Survey in September 2009. Their article stated that 38% of the voters believed electronic voting machines are more prone to fraud. Further, 43% voters think these machines have more potential for any unwanted glitches.
Linguistic minorities in any nation are often fairly acquainted with the national language of that country and it is only an unfair assumption that minorities are monolingual and thus unable to cast their votes in the national or regional language of a country.
Thad E Hall and R Michael Alvarez’s report also states that whereas 56.1% of the young voters are comfortable with electronic voting, the fraction drops down to 32% when the comfort ability factor of senior citizens in considered.
Despite the government’s claims on adequate training of the employees, experience suggests that more of the technical glitches are due to the lack of experience and poor training of the poll workers.
The San Diego Union Tribune ran a story on 7 March 2004 about an incident in Encinitas. The staff writers Luis Monteagulo and Jeff McDonald wrote about how the poll staff tried to contact the helpline when one of the machines malfunctioned just 45 minutes before the polls were scheduled to begin and how the line was going busy.
Conclusion
It is for certain that change can’t be held back forever. History tells us that each invention arouses numerous doubts in the minds of public and electronic voting machines are no exception. Having said that, it should be taken for inferred that it is better to get rid of ballot boxes and put in place fancy looking e-voting machines. They have their own drawbacks and some genuine concerns have been raised about their reliability and costs. Full public confidence can only be won if the more processes involving these machines come out in open. Further, instead of replacing traditional system with e-voting machines in a single go it would be in the public interest to introduce e-voting in phases so that we can learn from mistakes.
