Voting Machines

I have probably blogged about this one in the past...but I heard yet another podcast about voting machines and the horrors of what's going on with them. We've had 8 years since the 2000 election debacle to fix these problems...and we're just making them worse.

I am generally always in favor of technology and especially computers making our lives better, easier, automating things, etc. And I'm a techie and a geek and love gadgets, etc. So you know I'm not one of those technophobes that doesn't want to change or upgrade anything. But I'm totally AGAINST continuing to try to integrate complex technology into the voting process.

Why you ask? Wouldn't computerizing this process make it easier, faster, more efficient? The answer is a definite NO. I think like an engineer, and my engineering mind tells me to look at the problem and find the appropriate solution.

First, and most fundamental - what problem are we really trying to solve here? We have elections once or twice a year at most (not counting the occasional extras for a local runoff or issue). So from a purely financial perspective, investing a lot of money in a bunch of technology that will at most be used twice a year is a huge waste of public funds. That aside, the voting process happens all on one day - the most important part of the process is to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote. The second most important part of the process is that the votes are counted accurately. The third most important part of the process is that it is transparent - so that we know it's a fair process. The most important part is NOT that we count the votes the fastest or most efficiently (contrary to what the media probably thinks). We do not need the results of an election instantly. Waiting a day (or, heaven forbid even two days) is not a big deal - the people elected don't even take office until a month or two after the election!

To address the first priority - it is MUCH simpler to put out extra chairs, tables, pencils/pens, and ballots if a polling place gets busy, than it is to come up with more voting machines. This ensures everyone gets to vote, and doesn't have to wait hours to do it. Paper ballots - even if they are counted electronically with something like a scan-tron machine or similar, can be counted LATER - so even if the power goes out, you can have candles, battery powered lights, etc. and still vote. Good luck with your touch screen computers if the power is gone.

To address the second priority - any counting process probably has flaws. But with paper ballots there is ALWAYS a backup. They can always be re-counted by hand if necessary. I am a software engineer, and no matter how good you design your software, there is always a chance it can fail and lose data. The cost of high-end hardware that protects against data loss is very high - and even then it's not guaranteed. And the machines being used right now are not even close to that level.

To address the third priority - every voting machine in use today uses proprietary software that only the company who designed the system can see the source for, and knows how it actually works. I don't know how you get any more transparent than paper ballots that are public record and that can be recounted.

Bottom line - we are not solving any practical voting problem with voting machines. It is a major cost to taxpayers, it is not necessary, and it actually hurts the process. WHY WHY WHY are we doing this? It's going to happen again this election...I'm so glad Minnesota has resisted and stuck with paper and scan-tron machines.