WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPING A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR ELECTRONIC
VOTING TECHNOLOGIES
September 17-18, 2004
Convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Main | Program | Participants | Synopses
Susan Inman
E-VOTING TECHNOLOGIES…FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
AN ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR
SINK OR SWIM
There was a time when no one cared what type of voting system was used in a city, county or state, only that it produce timely and, hopefully, accurate results. Election administrators were swimming then. The only electronic systems available were those that earned certification that took years to obtain, so only a handful of vendors were swimming, too. The bad thing is that most of those systems were technologically outdated by the time they were certified. But they worked if everyone followed the rules.
Since the 2000 General Election, many election administrators started sinking along with the vendors. The Help America Vote Act has done many positive things for election administration. One important item brought to light by the act is the disparity in voting technology throughout the country. Voting technologies have suddenly, for the benefit of all, become fashionable to study and research.
Dozens of studies inspired by the 2000 Presidential Elections have resulted in a microscopic look into what really goes on behind the scenes. Now we are suddenly thrust into a "revolution" of what voting technology should or should not be, which is something no one may ever agree upon. Oops, we might be sinking again.
Before we can even begin to discuss what voting technology should or should not be, we must take into consideration the whole picture. Typically, in most jurisdictions, election administration is done by a county board of election commissioners in conjunction with an elected voter registration official. It is a people operation and technology is only a small part of it. Voting systems are, after all, only the means to the end, and the vast majority of election administration has nothing to do with the voting system. Few jurisdictions are capable of in-house management and set-up of voting systems, so most of the voting systems in use today are supported and setup by vendors. So, non-technical election administrators are reliant on someone from a large company, not unlike the tech support provided by, say…Microsoft. Now that's a frightening thought! Help! I'm starting to sink.
It seems incumbent upon us to take a look at exactly what it takes to bring about an election before trying to analyze what technology is best suited for voting. By delving into voting technology without understanding the other parts of the process may be counterproductive. There may be technologies that would make the entire process better, perhaps starting at the beginning with voter registration. The concerns of many election administrators about voting systems are questions of reliability, accuracy, usability, security and cost. We want to have control of system setup in a manner that it does not take a Ph.D. to understand and operate. We still want the little guy to be able to have confidence in the process and know that his vote counted. We want to be able to offer transparency in the process. We want to be able to swim through an election.
Though there is not a "school" much less a "doctoral" program
to become an election administrator (perhaps there should be), most election
administrators are dedicated, hardworking, intelligent and competent individuals
who take the job very seriously.
When you look at what occurs on any given election day and the magnitude of
the event, it is incredible that it comes together at all. Many professional
project managers would likely be frightened to undertake setting up an "election
day," yet election administrators take it in stride. You will also find
that election administrators who adhere to proper procedures, professional practices,
who have documented policies, and conduct regular training of staff and poll
workers, have few problems regardless of the voting system.
And let us not forget the voter, for without the voter none of this would be relevant. We must also remember that every single change in the election process causes confusion to the voter. Something as simple as changing a voting location causes voter disorientation and distress. We should consider with caution the ramifications of a wholesale makeover in the mechanism of voting unless it goes hand in hand with intensive voter education.
With all the current focus on voting accuracy, we have finally reached a point where we can start looking at the direction E-voting should take. By identifying the scope of the issue and who is responsible for what and how we can ensure that every vote is counted, and counted as intended, the desired goals will certainly be within reach. Also at question is whether or not E-voting is even the solution to the problem.
Every voter in the United States should have the confidence that his or her vote is counted. How we are going to be able to ensure that confidence gives us the question we need to consider. Public policy makers must be prepared to offer clear and concise guidance and direction to election administrators and voters alike. The comprehensiveness of these actions will decide whether we will sink or swim.