Hi-tech voting is profoundly suspect, says Simon Ardizzone
Wednesday May 2, 2007
The Guardian
At tomorrow's local elections, 11 boroughs will be piloting computerised voting technology. Ministers are worried by falling turnout and are convinced that voters are disengaging from an out-dated electoral system, so the government is now trying to modernise our elections using computer technology.The iPod generation is demanding an iPoll, or so the argument goes. But is the technology flawed? And will it corrode public confidence in our elections?
The pilot scheme covers computer scanning of paper ballots as well as phone voting and internet voting; it also allows people to vote at different polling stations if it's convenient. The problem is that the technology being used is fundamentally insecure and unreliable. To understand the full horror of what could happen to our democracy, we should look to America.
Since the disastrous 2000 election, with its "hanging chads", the US Congress and the states have pumped billions of dollars into upgrading the country's voting technology, but this money has only made the situation worse. The roll-out of the new technology has been dogged by technical problems and secrecy, as well as accusations of political corruption and corporate profiteering. Indeed, during the 2006 mid-term congressional elections, a spectacular election meltdown occurred.
In Sarasota, Florida, voting machines "lost" 18,000 votes, while the Republican candidate won by a mere 359 votes. No one knows what happened. The voters turned up, but while they voted in all the other races, mysteriously they did not vote in the congressional election. There were plenty of theories: it could have been machine malfunction, a computer hacker, or a virus.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/comment/0,,2069695,00.html