E-Voting, A Recipe for Fraud?

by J.G. Schwam

21 June 2003

Many states are looking toward the new technology of electronic voting as the newest high tech solution to replace their aging mechanical, punch card or optical card balloting systems. But given the baffling defeat of popular Georgia incumbent Senator and war hero, Max Cleland at the hands of an aggressive campaign by GOP operatives, aided by newly installed electronic voting machines built by GOP controlled manufacturers raises some unanswered questions.

There are currently only two companies currently manufacturing electronic voting systems, both are lobbying states and election districts heavily to purchase their systems. They are Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, CA. who is represented in the New York state capital, Albany by Jeff Buley. Buley, now a lobbyist represented New York's Governor Pataki in court proceedings regarding a primary election has deep ties to the GOP. The other is Nebraska based Election Systems & Software is alleged to have close business ties to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska).

A recent New York Sate Legislature vote not to repair 7000 aging machines before the elections this fall is bizarre, since it is an acknowledged fact that in the last election many voters' votes were not recorded at all by poorly functioning or non-functional machines. 

The so-called under vote averaged 3.9% citywide (New York City) and higher in some precincts. As many as 60,000 votes are estimated to have gone unrecorded in the 2000 election. It has been postulated that because of the precincts where many of the machines in question are located as much as 80% of these unrecorded votes would have gone to Democratic candidates. This is unacceptable and should be as well to every elected Democratic official and candidate in the state and the nation.

Nerves are still raw over the Florida debacle. The conduct and actions of many politicians and political operatives there made it clear that there some willing to put politics and winning above what is right and legal.

ES&S's claim of experience with their iVotronic system based on elections in Spain, Venezuela and a few schools and small election districts in the USA does not instill confidence enough when their software remains proprietary and cannot be counted publicly or by election district personnel in a traditional manner.

Since Florida 2000, a gray shadow has been cast upon the irreproachability of our polling process.  Confidence in, and the sanctity of this process are of paramount importance to the integrity of our political and electoral system. Without the restoration of this confidence from both a standpoint of integrity and one where the voter's perception is that his or her vote matters and is and will be counted accurately and with any possibility of partisan influence, participation in the electoral process will after a rise in participation in 2002 will once again begin to fall away.

The Democratic Party cannot afford voter turnout to decrease. We must work tirelessly to restore public confidence in both our elected officials and the process that elects them. There are few issues before our party in the coming elections where democratic victories are of critical import that are more vital than electoral integrity.

The issue with electronic systems is that they are software based and hence proprietary. Accountability and impartiality is not possible with any questions arising if voters must simply take the word of the manufacturer of the machines as to the accuracy of the count. Especially if the manufacturers of these machine have close ties to the GOP.

Simply stated, balloting should not be privatized.

So integral is voter confidence in the electoral process after Florida 2000 that even a mild implication that votes could be tampered with electronically will damage both voter turn out and imply the cry for the Democratic Party to do all it can to protect voter rights and promote honest, open elections has gone unheeded.

The only two manufacturers of such machines as detailed above; appear to have already tainted themselves with unbalanced campaign finance payments and ties to GOP candidates.

It is easy to understand the argument that electronic voting technology may seem quick and accurate. It may not however be wise if the process cannot be proven to be above reproach. It is hard to see how this is possible.

Frankly a return to paper ballots delivered under escort of representatives of all parties represented on the ballot to a certified location after a polling place count certified by those same representatives would serve to eliminate doubt in nearly all cases. A system of proprietary software that could be changed at any time without notice by the manufacturer would forever be open to questions of accuracy, validity and propriety.

There is no issue affecting New York State and many others around the nation is of more importance than restoring public confidence in government and those individuals that make it up than election reform and integrity. If the Democratic Party makes the right decisions with relation to their stand on this issue and is seen to have done so then this will be a major plus for the party on the 2004 ballot.

Democrats in all states should find out if ES&S and Sequoia Voting Systems are lobbying their election boards or legislatures and rail against their consideration.

New Yorkers must weigh their collective influence heavily on Gov. Pataki to not allow ANY political taint whatsoever on election and voting process reform in the state of New York and express their uncomfortability with electronic voting systems.

Any such taint will permanently damage the integrity of the electoral process, nearly for all time. The GOP may see poor voter participation and continued voter disenfranchisement as a benefit to their agenda and be able to afford this stain of impropriety. The Democratic Party cannot.