Growing up in the age of computer and technological, it comes almost as granted that any service or product that involves a human inconvenience will be fixed. A very simply example is the airline. Instead of riding slow intercontinental trains, you can just hop on airplanes and go from coast to coast in less than a day. Or a more pertinent example is how instead of using the postal service and relying on humans to process mail, you can instead send files online. Likewise, relating to the government, you can file your taxes online and be done much quicker than it takes to complete a paper form.

That said, what struck me as it has every two years for a long time was the long lines formed last week by the election voting site. Just for the record, last week, the United States held midterm elections for various governmental offices. It seems like electronic voting methods are being slowly implemented as if we didn’t trust technology.

Before I move on, I just want to applaud Aaron for the great job he has done writing for the Kudos & Calamities column. Unfortunately, he wrote his last column article this past week, but all past K&C articles are all safely saved and available for view under Weekly Columns. He has been a great complement to me writing every other week for the column and I wish him the best for anything else he may do with PC Mechanic or in life.

Moving on, it seems to be an issue every year with technology and the counting of the ballots. Theoretically, once properly implemented, using a computer to count ballots should make life much easier than to manually hand-count them. Computer can crunch numbers much faster than a human can every dream of. And most of what we do in our daily lives is completely reliant on computers. Why can we not rely on computers on something as straightforward and menial as counting ballots?

Let’s take a look back and look at what’s available. In the United States, there are two main systems of voting — paper ballot and electronic/optical voting. Let’s take a brief look at each of the systems:

Paper voting has been, for a long time, the only viable method of voting in the United States. The method is self-explanatory — you’re given a paper and you either punch a whole in the area that corresponds to your choice of candidate/issue or in some cases, write a check next to the name or issue. In addition, there is a mechanical voting system where you simply lower the lever corresponding to the candidate of your choice.

More recently, DRE (Direct-Recording Electronic) systems as well as optical voting systems began to show up in voting stations. Most recent DRE systems employ a touch screen method, where after being recognized as the voter, you simply make your choices based on what’s on the screen. The other DRE method employs a push-button method. There is a list of candidates with buttons next to each. When you select your candidate or issue preference, you push the button next to it and it illuminates and confirms the vote.

The optical scanning method is really a cross between paper ballot and true DRE. For any of you who have recently taken any standardized testing, you’re familiar with this type. This method requires the voter to fill in the bubble next to the candidate or issue of choice using a supplied writing instrument. After all the votes are in, the voting station counts the ballots using a sensing machine that will tabulate the votes.

In terms of the pros, they are fairly straightforward.

In paper-voting methods, the voter physically performs the act of voting in the voting stations. Also, there is a tangible method of checking for errors — recount the ballots. The ballots don’t disappear after they are counted. In terms of DRE and Optical voting, it’s faster, smarter, and more efficient. You save time and there is no room for human error.

In short, it really is what many perceived to be the shortcomings of the digital system (ie. DRE) that have caused its slow, if not, halted implementation. If there is an incident, it makes front page news and voters and voting station workers become reluctant with trusting the system.

The main “cons” that I hear most often about DRE is that there is no visible or physical act of voting (ie. No writing, no lever arm, etc.), and the high stakes on the system working.

The main “cons” that I hear about paper voting is subject to anything that is done by humans — the human error and inefficiency.

My Views:
Let me start off by making this very clear. I believe that if properly implemented and if properly trained and maintained, digital voting is clearly a better choice of voting. There is always concern for machine failure and malfunction. However, as I see it, we trust an overwhelming amount of tasks we do in our daily lives that also have the threat of malfunction. As I mentioned above, taxes can be filed online. Important confidential files are stored on servers. Air safety relies on technology. It has become a fact of life – we use technology to replace the less efficient manual systems. By now, at least in the examples I mentioned previously, the percentage of failure and breakage has become small enough to justify the obvious upsides of computers.

Several of you may point to history and point out failures with computers. Yes, if the machine refuses to accept votes or if the machine spontaneously deletes votes (better yet, change the votes), that would, will, and has been a catastrophe. However, keep in mind that given proper preparation, these contingencies are very avoidable. It is not that the machines are incapable — if a human can count votes, a computer is completely capable of doing so as well — it is simply that the human person(s) who made the machines did not prepare well enough. In the simple realm of voting, you do not need the type of security that, say, Microsoft needs to implement for Windows XP. The voting stations simply need a firmware that is secure and simple enough that has been continuously tested and worked. There really is no excuse for poorly prepared equipment.

This goes along with better preparation, but I believe that, like servers and mainframes, you need redundancy. It’s not simply enough to store data on one drive and let it count votes for you. In the case of voting integrity, there needs to be a backup.

What happens when the machines simply won’t boot up on the day that the voting occurs? Well, it’s not a matter of “if”. If the machines were taken care of properly and maintained properly by the voting stations and the staff, it shouldn’t be any problem. The chance that ALL the machines would be down is rather small. Given proper planning, funding, and training of the staff, there really should be no problems. It’s all about the human using and setting up the systems.

There is, as there always has been when technology is implemented with anything, a sense among especially older people that there lacks a sense of “voting” when you’re simply touching a screen. That, unfortunately, I have no answer for. It’s part of what’s happening every day – things change. That’s reality. And I think DRE, as soon as the nation gets comfortable with it, will be widespread. As we go on, technology will get better. It is easier, more efficient, and it is, in many ways, simply better.

Please feel free to comment below in the discussion area — I am eager to hear any of your thoughts.

Like what you read?

If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below: