Automated voting in the rest of the world

ROSES & THORNS
By Alejandro R. Roces, Philstar.com
Updated June 06, 2009 12:00 AM

During the November 2008 elections in the United States, we were amazed at how quickly results were reported. Within minutes of closing the polls in any region of the United States, news channels like CNN were ready with forecasts of results. Of course, we would be very pleased to see our elections run as (relatively) efficiently, quickly and honestly. Please note, we stress relatively. In almost every election, no matter what automated voting system is used, there are always going to be accusations of voter fraud. The goal should be then, to limit as much as possible, the fraud. Automated polling systems are only one aspect. In some countries, impartial observers are sent to voting sites to make sure no fraud takes place. Education programs, to teach people the importance of their vote, are also used. But, with all the talk of automating the voting process for 2010, it would be instructive to study what system(s) other countries use.

The June 1, 2009 Newsweek magazine ran an article about automated and electronic voting (“We do not trust machines: The people reject electronic voting”, by Eugene Morozov). We quote: “When Ireland embarked on an ambitious e-voting scheme in 2006 that would dispense with stupid old pencils, as then Prime Minister Bertie Ahern put it, in favor of fancy touchscreen voting machines, it seemed that the nation was embracing its technological future. Three years and €51 million later, in April, the government scrapped the entire initiative. High costs were one concern - finishing the project would take another €28 million. But what doomed the effort was a lack of trust: the electorate just didn’t like that the machines would record their votes as mere electronic blips, with no tangible record”.

The international mistrust of electronic voting (using touchscreen computers) has grown so much so that some areas are actually pulling out the new systems in favor of the old paper ballot system. The major concern appears to center around computers and their fallibility. As anyone who has used a computer knows, they are not very secure and reliable. In 2008, in Myrtle Beach, Florida, nearly all of their e-voting machines crashed; paper ballots had to be rushed to each voting location. Those who say that e-voting is more secure should look at the 2004 elections in Venezuela. After the election, it turned out that the government owned 28 percent of that company that manufactured the e-voting machines. In the Netherlands, e-voting machines have been banned, after it was shown that the machines could be “hacked” in five minutes.

The system that seems to be (re)gaining attraction in the developed world are paper ballots counted by optical scanners. Ultimately, this seems to be the favored system for one simple reason: it creates a paper trail that is easily audited. Also, the use of a paper-based system is easier to teach and less intimidating to voters. In Germany, their Supreme Court ruled e-voting unconstitutional because they believe the average citizen could not be expected to understand the steps involved in tallying the votes using e-voting machines. Transparency is the cornerstone of the voting process. Voters should be able to understand how their votes are counted.

There is no denying that our voting system needs to be overhauled. As it stands, it is not transparent and subject to all manner of voting fraud. We should make sure that the system that is implemented is current with preferred international standards and will not cause more problems than it “fixes”. While attractive for their novelty, touchscreen machines for e-voting appear to be out of favor for a variety of reasons. We should at least implement a functional paper-based balloting system that uses the latest in optical machines. But, we should remember that no matter what system is implemented, there are still going to be opportunities for voter fraud. No automated voting system will eliminate these problems.

If a new voting system is implemented, a program to educate voters on how to properly use the system must also be carried out. The worse thing that could happen is when people improperly use whatever system is adopted, thereby leading to inaccurate or spurious results. The costs for change must first be counted before new systems are considered; above all, making sure that positive results for efficiency and improvement are obtained. Otherwise, why bother at all?


ARTICLE COMMENTS

vas (posted on Jun 06, 2009 09:39 AM)
Member since Aug 04, 2007

"In Canada, the voting is the same as it was in pure manual system, an X opposite the candidate of your choice as selection of Representative was already made simple as picking ONE among the candidates...the Machine will just do the counting and tallying and the ballot is kept for safekeeping just in case of protest or close contest and the court ordered Manual Counting...results usually available within two Four Hours after the polls close...Frauds and cheating? Very RARE in any process, during the manual system of the past and the full automation of today's. conclusion: automation in the case of the Philippines electoral process may speed up the results, but fraud and vote buying will still continue, until the laws is duly enforced and most importantly the Change of Attitudes of citizens in regards to cleaning up the system."