[link to index of press clippings]


Despite apparent e-vote success, questions remain

An 'absence of accountability' could lead to doubts about accuracy

NOVEMBER 03, 2004
News Story by Dan Verton and Patrick Thibodeau

WASHINGTON -- Computer security experts today renewed their warnings about electronic voting systems and said that without an independent assessment of how the equipment fared in yesterday's elections, it's difficult to determine their accuracy.

"We need some way of assessing what has happened after the fact," said Peter Neumann, the principal scientist at SRI International Computer Science Laboratory and chair of the National Committee for Voting Integrity (NCVI). "It is extremely difficult to determine what happened because there is an absence of accountability and auditing in those machines."

NCVI members did not allege widespread problems with e-voting systems, but they warned that the machines could still leave voters with doubts about the final results.

"Yesterday's vote went remarkably smoothly, considering that we had record turnout and considering that it was scrutinized with more intensity then I can remember," said NCVI member Doug Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa and a voting technology expert.

"Electronic voting machines took an important test on Nov. 2 and passed with flying colors," said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, an Arlington, Va.-based IT industry lobbying group. Yesterday's e-vote, using approximately 175,000 different systems across the country, "took place efficiently and effectively across a wide range of people, places and local election processes and practices, [and] with a minimum of disruptions."


But critics remain concerned that yesterday's apparent success could be overshadowed by what they called significant problems with the process by which e-voting is done. During the long and grueling tabulation process last night, some grass-roots voter monitoring organizations began posting firsthand accounts of incidents they say clearly indicate a nationwide lack of technical and process standards. That, combined with an inability to verify how individual systems tabulate votes, has created a deeply flawed election process, they said.

Jones said research into how voters interact with the machines is difficult to conduct. "All we can do is things like compare the number of ballots with the number of votes recorded and wonder, 'Why did people come to the polling place to cast a blank ballot?'" he said. While voting experts know a lot about how people make errors on paper ballots, they still know little about what goes wrong with electronic voting systems.

The NCVI is most concerned about touch-screen systems that don't produce a paper record of a vote, a write-once CD-ROM record, or some other permanent, separate record that is available for audit and review, said Lillie Coney, the coordinator of the NCVI.

Coney said she doesn't understand why election officials use paperless voting machines. "It is the most perplexing thing I've ever seen."

Part of the problem, she said, is with state and local election officials who aren't skilled IT buyers. "They are relying strictly on what their vendors tell them -- if their vendors tell them it's secure, it's secure," she said.

NCVI officials said it may take weeks to determine the extent and kinds of problems voters encountered. The group plans to sift through voter incident reports and news accounts of problems and will continue to push Congress to fund research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The agency has been tasked by Congress to develop e-voting standards, but isn't getting the funding needed to do the job, according to the NCVI.

Other issues arising from the use of e-voting could also raise questions about the overall voting process in the U.S. Some voting experts pointed to problems in some polling places with the manual process of verifying voter registrations. Disputes often led to the issuance of provisional ballots.

"Having successfully avoided the recount problems of 2000, the focus has now shifted to voter qualification," said Stewart H. Thomas, a managing partner at the law firm Thomas & Dees PLLC in Dallas. "The provisional ballot, just like the touch-screen ballot, is an unrewarding process ..." he said. "Certainly we can do better."

Some problems were more serious than that. Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer science professor ... A critic of the way e-voting system vendors designed their software and of the secrecy around the development process, Rubin said the deployment process and controls put in place were woefully inadequate.

As a result, there's reason to be concerned about the integrity of the results in many polling places, he said.

Rubin, who worked at a polling place in Timonium, Md., said Diebold Inc. Accuvote TS touch-screen systems were left unattended overnight at the polling place on Nov. 1. (Princeton computer science professor Edward Felton reported a similar incident in New Jersey.)

In addition, the same machines referenced by Rubin were set up the night before the election by two local elections officials from the same political party, according to Rubin.


In an interview with Computerworld, Rubin said that the fact that this election is being labeled a success for e-voting systems "does not mean that it will be next time. And, we'll never really know if [this election] was actually successful," he said.

"When votes are stored as electrons, and tallying is done using shoddy software that is running on Microsoft Windows, there is no way to know that someone hasn't tampered with it," said Rubin. "If you drive without a seat belt, as we did in this election, and you don't crash, that doesn't mean you should conclude that it is safe to drive that way."

Copyright © 2004 Computerworld Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Computerworld Inc. is prohibited. Computerworld and Computerworld.com and the respective logos are trademarks of International Data Group Inc.