|
Outline: |
|
Introduction: a brief overview of what will be addressed in the paper. History: information about electronic voting, how it has been used, who has used it Technology: what is available now, what is being developed, what will have to be developed Security: how e-voting can be secure, developments in security Social Implications: digital divide issues, voter turnout issues Conclusion: brief summary of the report, our findings Works Cited: an html version of our works cited |
|
The Report: |
|
In our democracy, our leaders are picked by the people and for the people by casting a vote in free elections. Some elections in the United States have been biased in the past due to racial, sexual, or any other form of discrimination. Today, however, the people enjoy relatively few problems at the voting booth, aside from the confusing ballot every now and again. Just as people have come to accept their fellow citizens as equals, voting technology has progressed as well. Instead of casting hand marked ballots, punch cards and machines are used throughout much of the country. The last decade has seen the emergence of the Internet and the subsequent embrace that society is still giving it. Due to this cultural phenomenon of everything becoming "wired" or going "online," many have suggested the Internet as a natural successor to the voting technologies of yore. Proponents of electronic voting are ready to discard the punch card for the database. On the other hand, some believe that Internet voting is simply not viable today due to technological or security-related impediments. Through an analysis of the history of electronic voting, the technological and security-related issues surrounding it, and examining how the voter has behaved in the past and might behave in the future, we look to offer an opinion on whether Internet based electronic voting is ready to become a reality. |
|
Electronic voting, or e-voting, includes two different concepts of voting with two distinct histories: remote polling and on site polling. Electronic voting simply means the use of computers to aid the polling process, as opposed to manual vote tallying machines, such as those made famous in the Florida elections. Some form of electronic voting is already in place in many states. However, when most people think of e-voting, they think of remote polling over the Internet, which is a much more controversial method of collecting opinion data. E-voting is defined as "an election system that uses encryption to allow a voter to transmit his or her secure and secret ballot over the Internet." Although this definition is not complete, it encompasses the most common view of e-voting. Internet voting is already a common practice among private organizations. In our age of international business, it is sometimes impossible to elect board members by personal vote, such as the-voting members of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 2000. Some of these companies have chosen to administer electronic polling for these elections through the Internet. Similarly, many entertainment awards have begun to utilize the Internet as a means of gathering public opinion. In 1999, the Emmy Awards asked viewers to choose the most memorable TV moment of the year through an online poll. The poll site, offered through the Excite network, listed 20 nominations viewers could choose between. Although there are many less prestigious entertainment award shows that have allowed viewers to choose their favorites for years, such as the People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards, the acknowledgement of Internet voting as an inexpensive and easy way of gathering viewer information signaled a change in the way people viewed Internet voting. "'I don't think we're that far away from letting viewers select an award,' academy president Jim Chabin says. 'It's not a big leap to go from picking favorite moments on TV to picking favorite actors, actresses and TV shows.' The idea is 'to connect the fans with the show in a very direct way.'" The Academy's view on electronic voting mirrors the way some advocates of public Internet voting feel: Internet voting gives the public better access and information. Just as TV viewers can pick awards with relative ease, legislators can offer more referendums to the public to increase their democratic participation. In addition, with Internet polling, information about the choices can be listed along with the poll. In 2000, Major League Baseball offered fans the chance to pick the lineup for the year's All Star Game. They received a record 2.4 million votes. "'When you went on the Internet to vote, you got real-time stats, so you had an opportunity to really drill down and see who was performing,' Brosnan said. 'Guys like Giambi and Dye made it on their merits.'" In the 2000 poll, each fan was limited to 25 votes in response to an incident in the previous year "officials caught a fan submitting 25,000 votes for Boston shortstop Nomar Garciaparra on the last day of balloting." While Internet voting is fairly common in the private sector, the public sector is much more wary about what foreseeable and unforeseen consequences Internet voting might have on democracy. This is in part because public elections have much more at stake than private elections and in part because public elections are a much more attractive target to crackers and others who intend harm. However, in Switzerland, parts of Alaska and California, government has experimented with the Internet as a way of selecting leaders. In 2000, the Arizona Democratic Primary offered such an opportunity. |
|
The technology required to operate electronic voting has been around for quite some time. In fact, it has been around just as long as the Internet has. What has not been around is the sound infrastructure required to operate a safe and non-vulnerable system. The system would have to be able to support millions of hits at any certain time. It would also have to have many security measures to deter would be hackers of cracking and crashing the system. There are two different types of e-voting, remote and polling place. Remote e-voting can and probably will only be able to function through the Internet. However, there is a little bit more flexibility with polling place electronic voting. In voting electronically at a polling place, the options can either be the Internet, a electronic touch screen, or an ATM style machines. Several big name technology giants have been working to create a safe and functional system. IBM, Unisys, and Dell have teamed up to come up with a system. This was done one week after Compaq and Cisco systems put 15 million dollars towards Votehere.net. These hardware and software giants are all working hard and fast to come up with a safe and well working system for elections of the future. Some of their trial systems have already been used in private and non-profit company elections. The trial systems have also been used in a couple of state primaries. There are also a handful of web based companies fighting for supremacy in the world of e-voting. Votehere.net, previously mentioned, has its backing from Compaq inc. and Cisco Systems, two well respected companies. There are several others but Votehere.net's main competitor is Election.com, based it New York. Election.com oversaw and supplied all of the technology for the 2000 Arizona primary. Election.com has several offices around the world and has already secured future commitments to oversee elections in the UK, France, Germany, and Australia. Election.com has already had success in conducting private and non-profit company elections. Remote electronic based voting is basically a Internet based system. It is called remote, because it would be done outside of the traditional polling place. The convenience of remote e-voting would be great; in fact it would be fantastic. The turnout, for voting, would probably be much higher than usual. Another added benefit to web based voting would be it would be easier to get a more accurate count and it would be faster to access results. The question though would not be its convenience, but is it secure? The technology for remote e-voting has always been there. The only thing that would have to be changed is the security measures to ensure a safe and fraud free election. That is where the web based election companies would come in hand. They would have to ensure that their companies have the firewalls and the other security measures in place to ensure that there would be no tampering in an election. A remote voting system would also be cheaper. It would cost a state less to run its election over the Internet than rather having to pay several hundred or thousand election workers to tally punch-card ballots. It may be costly at first, due to having to supply computers at a polling site, but in the long run it would save several millions. The save in cost should provide states a good reason to switch to e-voting. If remote voting were allowed in public state elections, there would still have to be some form of e-voting at the traditional polling place. This is because of those affected by digital divide that would not be able to have e-voting access at their homes. The state polling centers would have to have e-voting access at the polling site to ensure a fair election. The e-voting, at the polling site, would make for a faster and less error prone election, rather than the errors usually caused by the punch card system. An alternative to Internet voting would be a touch screen system. This would also be an e-voting system because it is computer based system not a manual punch-card system. This would probably be the most viable option for e-voting, if remote voting is not used in public state elections. This system would also cut down on the errors that come about from the manual system. There are several companies that have manufactured an ATM based touch screen system. The two main companies are HartIntercivic Inc. and Gartner Group Inc. The way in which the screen works is that a ballot would appear on the screen and the user could make his or her choices on the screen. The system even allows for a double checking of ones vote. The user can see their ballot on screen and make all of the necessary corrections on screen before the final submittal of their ballot. Another device that could be used in the e-voting at the polling sites would be an e-slate system. The HartIntercivic group produces the e-slate system. This system offers a DRE (Direct Response Electronic) system. The e-slate system tabulates the ballots faster than a touch screen style would because it would be a web based system. The system would also be beneficial to those who are disabled. It accommodates the hearing and vision impaired voters. For example, the vision-impaired voter would hear an audible signal indicating a duplicate or valid response. The e-slate system could also be available as a remote voting system. There are plans in the works, by Hart Intercivic, to make it available in palm computer form. Both the Texas and Colorado election boards have already certified the e-slate system for future state elections. There are many options to e-voting. The technology is there to support an e-voting system be it in public or private elections. The software and hardware computer giants are involved in creating products that will make for smoother more efficient elections. Some companies have even merged to create one system. One of these joint ventures has occurred between Microsoft, Unisys, and Dell. The other merger between two well established companies being by Compaq and Cisco Systems. There is a need for a more efficient election system. Electronic voting might increase the efficiency that is demanded of voting systems. The touch screen system could help in the traditional poll site elections. The Internet would be a viable tool in remote voting. There is room to grow in regards to the technology available for e-voting. Such new concepts, such as the e-slate, are examples of the increasing technology available in voting. Where else will technology take us in regards to voting? That still remains to be seen. What is apparent though, is that we are headed for a more efficient and safer way of voting. |
|
The University of Maryland College Park was part of a recent study on Internet Voting and its various aspects. Security seems to be one of the more controversial issues surrounding the feasibility of Internet voting. It seems obvious to move forward with voting over the Internet. It would be convenient, there would be no transportation cost, and a person wouldn't have to miss work or miss the opportunity to vote by waiting in long lines after work. Further thought and investigation proves those aspects that seem to "save" one time and money may actually not be beneficial enough to the counterbalance the negative aspects that can occur with Internet voting. According to Deborah M. Phillips and David Jefferson of the Voting Integrity Project, there are several reasons why Internet voting shouldn't forge ahead just yet. There are two types of
e-voting to be considered when addressing the issue of
security. The main one being remote usage, which most people
probably think of when they consider online voting. This
would be if a person were to vote from their home or office.
There is also another type that would have Internet voting
from polling sites. This is the same form of voting
procedure as regular voting, only hooked up to the Internet
instead. According to Roy G. Saltman, who wrote a report in
1993 on the role of Congress in keeping the integrity of
elections: This was very forward
thinking considering that the first trial Internet voting
didn't even occur until March 2000. In the Phillips and
Jefferson article, they mention several key differences
between the remote form of voting and Internet voting from a
designated polling site: Polling Place
System Restricting e-voting to polling places eliminates many of these concerns for the reasons given by Phillips and Jefferson and reiterated by Peralta. Most home or office Internet users aren't aware of the lack of security that they are faced with. Many individuals have no knowledge of the vast amounts of websites that get hacked into on a regular basis, either to detrimental effects or just to prove a point. Because of the ease of which these things happen, the security of an election shouldn't be compromised because of the risk of an unsecured terminal. That's not even getting into other countries that could access election results in their favor. What if China or Israel felt a particular candidate would better serve the needs of their country? They could employ a hacker to change the election results. There are just too many variables that should be addressed before remote voting should be considered. Are there positives to this type of voting? Absolutely. Arizona actually reported an increase in voter participation. Issues like this may actually force security measures to be promptly looked into just for benefits of getting groups that have had a low turnout to become more active. Plus, when there is a convenience factor involved, more people expect faster results in putting such convenience into action. Even if there were a way to solve all security concerns there are still social implications that must be addressed before e-voting can be implemented. |
|
Besides grappling with the issues of security and technology of electronic voting, the voter should be studied to see whether he or she would participate in the electronic voting process. After all, the voter determines the final outcome of the election. To make a case for the continuing development of technologies related to governmental electronic voting, trends in voter behavior should endorse such developments; otherwise, a system of voting will be established, but there will be no voters to use it. Voter turnout in the United States has been decreasing fairly steadily over the last few decades. Perhaps the voters are less energized by the issues today than they were 40 or 50 years ago, or perhaps this lower turnout has something to do with accessibility to voting; however, the point of this paper is not to suggest ways to increase turnout. According to figures from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), voter turnout in the 1960 national election was hovering around 63%. In the non-Presidential election years of the 60's, 1962 and 1966, turnout fell to about 50%. For the Presidential elections of the 1960's, however, turnout was always at least 60%. The 1970's saw the first major drop in turnout. In 1972, turnout for the Presidential election fell to about 55%, where it remained for Presidential contests until about 1984. 1988 saw a drastic drop in turnout, but 1992 reversed the drop and brought the rate back to about 55%. The 1996 race saw the lowest numbers for a Presidential race that the FEC has on record to date; turnout was only 49.08%. According to estimates for voter turnout in the 2000 Presidential election from Infoplease.com, turnout was about 51.2%. Considering the near 50/50 split in the returns, such a figure is reminiscent of a non-Presidential cycle of the 1960's. One of the forerunners to any type of Internet-based governmental voting is proxy voting by shareholders online. Corporate investors have been involved in electronic voting for a few years now. A problem arises when trying to compare or contrast corporate electronic voting to governmental electronic voting based purely on statistical measures. Many of these companies will not release shareholder voter behavior statistics, nor are they expected to. The only viable comparisons, then, are the few actual electronic voting attempts for governmental elections. The year 2000 saw some dramatic forays into the realm of electronic voting. Most notably, the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary election was conducted online, which the Arizona Republic calls "the world's first binding Internet election." Most notably, Internet voting was tried in a recent public election during the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary, which the Arizona Republic calls "the world's first binding Internet election." Citizens of Arizona were able to vote through the mail, at traditional polling sites (using both paper ballots and electronic terminals) or at home on their personal computer. "More than 35,000 people &endash; three times as many as participated in 1996 &endash; had cast ballots in early Internet voting completed Friday." This essentially means that three times as many people voted through the Internet in the 2000 primary than all voters in the 1996 primary, which didn't have Internet voting as a polling option. More than six times as many people participated in the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary than in the primary of the last presidential election, an astonishing increase than some attribute to the accessibility of Internet voting. Election.com, the same company that runs private elections, such as the ICANN election, handled the Internet polling. Election.com issued voters identification numbers with which they could vote through the Internet. The Voting Integrity Project, based in Arlington Virginia, attempted to block Internet voting because it contends that because of the digital divide, Internet voting disadvantages the poor and minorities, who traditionally lack as much access to technology. The VIP filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the Arizona Democratic primary on January 21, 2000 in federal district court "on the grounds that it unfairly discriminates against African-American, Native-American, and Hispanic voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965." Internet voters had four days with 24-hour access to the polls (for a total of 96 hours of possible-voting time), while traditional voters were forced to travel to a polling site and were given only 12 hours to vote. The president of VIP, Deborah M. Phillips, stated, "This is just a new millennium version of the literacy test," as "only 19% of African-Americans and 16% of Hispanics have Internet access from any location, compared to 38% of whites." Although the injunction was not granted, the lawsuit brought to light many concerns about Internet voting. Democratic leaders countered the concerns by stating that minority voting increased from 1996, but others responded that this increase was due to an overall voter increase. The Arizona listed the
following notable changes in voter turnout during the
primary. Turnout in minority districts increased from 1992;
however, turnout in these districts is still much lower than
those in non-minority districts. While the figures stemming from the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary seem extremely promising in terms of the demand that may exist for electronic voting, a few things must first be considered. Because it was so new, there is a good chance that many more people voted in the electronic primary for novelty purposes. Also, it must be noted that although the increased turnout exemplified by the 2000 Arizona case may support many theorists who have hypothesized that Internet voting will lead to increased turnout, studies by social scientists have yet to prove such claims. Voter behavior in electronic elections is a burgeoning new field that has not been studied as widely as conventional voter behavior. According to a comprehensive report published by the National Workshop on Internet Voting, the participants propose two possible trends in voter behavior should remote electronic voting become the norm. One hypothesis is that electronic voting will attract previously apathetic voters to vote. The experts theorize that these voters who never would have gone and voted, will go online to vote simply because of the convenience. This increase in turnout will be sustained possibly because these new voters will be younger and as they get older, they will continue to follow new voting behavior patterns. Alternatively, these younger voters may at first begin to vote, resulting in a surge of turnout, but the novelty will wear off soon afterwards, as mentioned earlier. A third and unrelated result could be that electronic voting could actually lower turnout. The experts feel that if a shoddy system is implemented, then voters will shy away from electronic voting and voting in general due to a sense of illegitimacy in the process. Another consideration that must be addressed is the accessibility of electronic voting. Accessibility must be addressed for both remote electronic polling and on-site electronic polling. It is easy to discern that on-site electronic polling would not restrict access much more than traditional voting is concerned. The only major difference would be that some of those going to the polls may not understand how to use a computer and may be intimidated by the new system. This issue is easily solved through tutorials in using the electronic voting apparatus, much the same way assistance is given for the traditional voting booth. There are major differences between on-site and remote polling. Remote polling opens up vast accessibility problems related to the growing digital divide. It is well documented that there are stark differences among the populace of the United States when it comes to access to computer technology. The technology have-nots would suffer the most from remote electronic polling. Digital divide problems will still exist even if every house in the United States has a computer that can connect to the Internet. Just because someone has Internet access in their home, does not mean that they have the same level of technology as someone who is richer or poorer. These problems will forever impede remote electronic voting from becoming a reality for all Americans. If only some voters will be able to access electronic voting sites through only the most advanced technology, the others will still need to get out of their houses to vote. This problem seems similar to shopping on the Internet; some people with the means to shop online do, while others still go to the store to make their purchases. For those who cannot even access the Internet, the store is their only option. An accessibility problem seems inevitable with remote electronic voting. The solution is a mixed approach in designing electronic voting solutions must not only be seriously considered, but also seriously implemented; such an approach would include both remote e-voting solutions as well as on-site e-voting solutions. With a mixed approach to electronic voting, voter behavior could keep turnout at least as high as it has been recently. Unless the American voter is determined to waste their opportunity to vote, as the trend has been since the 1960's, then electronic voting could definitely increase turnout levels by answering one of the commonly heard excuses for why people do not vote: it is not convenient. For those who have access to technology that will allow for remote electronic voting, turnout will likely increase. Otherwise, those lacking the technology for remote electronic voting will continue to return to the traditional polling places to cast their votes in on-site electronic polling devices. |
|
It is the decision of this group that electronic voting is simply not ready to implement anytime soon. Although electronic voting has had limited success to this point, the cost of implementing even on-site electronic polling on a nation-wide scale, as well as securing the entire system is unimaginable. To implement any form of remote electronic voting, such as from the home, would take even longer; voting rights laws currently in place would most likely be used to get injunctions to stop remote polling unless every single citizen of the United States is outfitted with identical voting technologies, not merely Internet access. While it could be argued that this is a possibility through the help of large corporate backers, again there is a stumbling block. The problem lies in the Constitution: each state is in charge of running elections within their own borders. Electronic voting, to be accepted as a legitimate way to cast a ballot, must be implemented across the country, not in select states. Companies would not be lining up if they wanted to develop 50 different Internet voting solutions, one for each state, they are lining up to develop a standard system. Standardizing the system can be good, but each state is different when it comes time to cast ballots. For Congress or the President to mandate any form electronic voting would be a major infringement on individual states' rights. These are merely some of the problems with electronic voting. The National Workshop on Internet Voting delved into the subject in October 2000, but even participants have said that they merely scratched the surface. Their findings and ours are similar. Until some of these fundamental issues are corrected, be prepared to continue to vote as you have been, be it in a church hall, fire station, or local school in an old voting booth. |
|
"Arizonans Log On, Vote in Democratic Primary." The Washington Post 12 March 2000. Brown, Doug. "In The Running." ZDNet 19 Nov 2000. 28 Apr 2001 <http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2655553,00.html>. Chiu, Lisa. "Record Primary Turnout, Dems' Vote Attracted Across Racial Lines." The Arizona Republic 25 Mar 2000. Compiled from Wire Reports. "2.4-million cast ballots on Internet." St. Petersburg Times 6 Jul 2000. "election.com Named Among Top 25 Changing the World of Internet and Politics." Election.com 10 Apr 2001. 28 Apr 2001 <http://www.election.com/us/pressroom/pr2001/0410.htm>. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996. 28 Apr 2001 < http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm>. "Hart InterCivic's eSlate™ Electronic Voting System Certified for Use in Colorado Elections." Hart InterCivic. Inc. 2 Apr 2001. 28 Apr 2001 <http://www.hartic.com/news/press_releases.asp?id=30>. "Internet wins Arizona popular vote." The Financial Times 13 Mar 2000. Junnakar, Sandeep. "Unisys, Dell, MS team on vote technology." ZDNet 11 Jan 2001. 28 Apr 2001 <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2673654,00.html>. Kurlantzick , Joshua. "Companies look for a surge in electronic voting." U.S. News & World Report 5 Mar 2001. 27 Apr 2001 <http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010305/evote.htm>. Levin, Gary. "Vote on line for TV moment Emmy can't forget." USA Today 1 Sep 1999. Maier, Timothy. "Should the Mouse Cast Your Vote?" InSightMag.com 8 Aug 2000. 28 Apr 2001 <http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200008289.shtml>. Manjoo, Farhad. "Jury Still Out on Net Elections." Wired News 11 Oct 2000. National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960&endash;2000. 28 Apr 2001 <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html>. Pastore, Michael. "Hardware: What about Chad?" 18 Dec 2000. 28 Apr 2001 <http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/hardware/article/0,1323,5921_538373,00.html>. Peralta, Rene. "Voting Over the Internet." Internet Policy Institute. 21 Apr 2000 <http://www.netvoting.org/Resources/peralta.doc>. Phillips, Deborah M. and David Jefferson. "Is Internet Voting Safe?" Internet Policy Institute 10 Jul 2000. 21 Apr 2000 <http://www.voting-integrity.org/text/2000/internetsafe.shtml>. Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda. Internet Policy Institute, March 2001. Saltman, Roy G. "CFP'93-Assuring Accuracy, Integrity and Security in National Elections : The Role of the U.S. Congress." Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility 12 Feb 1993 <http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/cfp93/saltman.html>. "VIP Files Voting Rights Lawsuit to Block Internet Voting in AZ Dem Primary." The Voting Integrity Project (press release) 21 Jan 2000. <http://www.voting-integrity.org/text/2000/rel012100.shtml>. "What is E-Voting?" techtarget.com 22 Feb 2001. 27 Apr 2001 <http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci491925,00.html>. |