How Can the United States Improve its Current Voting System?

The Current Conflicts page is a resource for Workable Peace educators and students interested in applying their WP skills to current events. In this section, Workable Peace profiles a current conflict or controversial issue of national or global significance, from the viewpoint of two or more groups involved. For past conflicts that have been highlighted on these pages, please click here.

In this election season, our Current Conflict focuses on the problems with the mechanisms used for collecting and tabulating voting in the US, and in particular the current tensions over electronic voting, papers trails, and differences across districts.

Table of Contents

• Background and History of Voting in the United States
  
  
• Historical Context

• Analysis of the Conflict

• Viewpoints on 'How can the United States improve its current voting system?'

• Other Resources on the Voting Debate

• Classroom Activities

• Extension Activities

Background and History of Voting in the United States

The 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides a precise process for electing both the President and Vice-President. However, it does not specify the mechanisms to be used in voting, nor does it set voting standards for the nation. Throughout its history, the United States has continued to evolve its voting system along with technology. With each new system of voting has come some advancements in efficiency and accuracy, along with new controversy, as the nation continues its effort to provide safe, effective, and foul-proof voting for the country.

Paper ballots, sometimes called the “Australian ballot,” were first introduced to the United States in New York in 1889, and are still used today. These ballots usually have large boxes that can be marked by the voter, and the results are counted by hand. However, with large numbers of electoral races and large numbers of voters, the counting process can be quite cumbersome and is subject to human error. Furthermore, these ballots can be tampered with during transporting and counting and might be subject to vote buying and ballot box stuffing.

Mechanical lever voting machines were first used in Lockport New York in 1892, and were referred to as the “Myers Automatic Booth”. These machines allow election results to be determined quickly and make fraud less likely. However, there is no ability to “audit” these machines or recount ballots. Furthermore, if the wheel malfunctions and the counter wheel fails to turn, there is no tally to count the votes. During the 2000 Presidential election in New York City, levers on some of the machines were broken off so that people could not vote for certain offices. Nonetheless, as of March 2001, 15% of the counties in the United states continued to use these devises.

About twenty years ago, many counties in the state of Florida began using Punch-card voting systems in place of the mechanical levers. In the Votomatic system, the cards are printed with rows of marks where holes can be punched, but no names are printed on the cards. Instead, the names are listed on a ballot holder device, which can be placed over the card. Each hole lines up with the name of a candidate. Normally, officials try to place all of the names to the left of the holes, but they occasionally face a format that requires holes to be both on the left and on the right side of the names, resulting in a butterfly ballot. These ballots caused a controversy in not only the 2000 election, but also back in the 1987 election. In 1987, courts ruled that the ballots did not give the blacks in St. Louis equal opportunities to vote, because education differentials led to more mistakes with the ballot. As a result, the courts called for better voter education in the black wards and mandated that improperly marked ballots be counted by hand.

The Datavote system, which prints the candidates names directly on the card, reduces confusion but still poses problems. This system can becomes expensive, as most elections require more than one card. Under votes are also common because voters forget to vote for offices on the back of the punch cards. The votes are made using a mechanical hole puncher, which separates the chad from each hole.

To avoid the controversy of chads, Optical Scan Voting Systems (Marines), is currently being used in 40% of the counties in the United States. This system is similar to the familiar systems for standardized testing. The voter fills in an oval or connects the dots on a paper ballot and a machine then scans the ballots to count the votes. However, some people have found this system confusing, filling in the wrong oval, too many ovals, or incompletely filling the oval. In addition, these ballots can be tampered with between the time of voting and counting. Some precincts have responded to this with their own scanners, so that the voter can feed their ballot into the machine themselves and make sure that the vote is counted and correct.

Another device used for voting is the Direct Recording Electronic system. These systems, used in 9% United States counties in the 2000 election, have touch-screens for selecting the preferred candidate. The machines do not allow over voting, and warn the voter if they fail to vote for an office. However, the machines cannot be used for a recount, and leave no paper trail, and open the possibility of technological failure or tampering.

As the Internet becomes more publicly accessible, the possibilities for Internet voting are becoming popular. The first government election to be done on the Internet was in 1996 for the Reform party’s Presidential Primary. The Internet has since been used in small scale experiments, with limited stakes, which have been reported successful. Critics see many potential problems involving viruses, corruption, hacking, and user errors. However, the convenience of Internet voting and its potential to dramatically increase voter turnout makes it an appealing option.

All of these systems are governed only by voluntary federal standards, enacted in 1990.

For a more detailed description of voting systems used throughout the nation’s history, click here. More history is available in pdf format here.

<back to table of contents>

Historical Context: The 2000 Florida Presidential Election

<back to table of contents>

1. What standards and security should be implemented for the voting system that is used?
   Is the Federal Election Commission standard too weak, or outdated, or just right? Is the 2002 Help America Vote act necessary and beneficial?
   
2. How consistent do voting systems need to be across all of the United States precincts?
   Is it necessary that all states, and all counties within states, use the same methods of voting? How do the statistical margins of error affect the election?
   
3. Which voting system will be the most dependable and convenient to voters?
   How dependable are these systems? Is there a need for paper trails? Are they accessible to the disabled? What is an acceptable margins of error?
   
4. How much of a role should cost play in the decision of a voting system?
   How should the costs of voting systems be shared among the county, state, and federal governments? What are the best financial investments?

B. The key interests, beliefs, identities, and emotions of the writers advocating the various responses:

• What are the writer's interests? What does s/he want and why? Which of these interests are most important to him/her?
  

• What are the writer's beliefs? What values (moral and political) inform or underlie the arguments and positions the writer expresses? What underlying beliefs about truth support their perspectives?
  

• What emotions appear to be influencing the writer's thinking and conclusions? How does s/he feel?
  

• What identities does the author hold? What words would s/he use to describe him/herself and the members of his/her group? What role is s/he playing in this situation?

C. The writers' perspective on the interests, beliefs, identities, and emotions of others who have different points of view, and who may be affected by this conflict.

The Workable Peace Sources Chart provides a tool for this examination. (html or pdf)

The viewpoints below represent come of the range of perspectives on the current choices faces the US as it makes it next steps regarding voting systems.

<back to table of contents>

Perspective 1: Direct Recording Electronic voting systems are not only dependable and convenient, but also have high security. These machines should be used in all counties, to avoid the unfair advantages and disadvantages and the differential impact of different votes caused by using multiple types of mechanisms. Paper trails are not necessary and a waste of resources.

The machines have safeguards including the backing up of information at least twice to prevent mechanical failures. In addition, any changes to votes are logged and tracked, while the engineers have encrypted and protected data with digital signature. The voting software must pass the standards of the Federal election Commission and the National Association of State Elections Directors. Recounts have been argued as faulty because they can be easily tampered with, so voter verified paper ballots are an unnecessary added expense. Moreover, if the machine is tested, it will include internal audit logs and make programming errors impossible and recovery from accidental error possible. The software that runs the machines is not subject to public scrutiny because it is proprietary. Even if it is impossible to build a perfect machine, there is a capability to create a machine with less error than paper ballots. The machine that has been created is both easy to use and dependable. Touch-screen systems allow voters to avoid voting for too many candidates or the wrong candidate. Also, if the voter fails to vote for an office, the system warns them of their action. The machines show the intent of the voter without error, since there are no chads or opportunity for mis-marking ballots. In the 2000 election, 10% of the voters in the United States used touch-screen systems. This year, almost 18% use them, which shows that voters see them as both dependable and convenient. Moreover, touch-screen systems are easy for the blind population to use because the can be adapted with audio units.

Using different equipment in different counties leads to questions of all votes being treated equally, as the error rates for different machines are different, and different machines are used across the country. If a candidate has more support in a precinct with equipment with higher error rates and less support in a precinct with lower error rates, the candidate could be at a disadvantage in a close election, depending on the way that voting equipment is distributed throughout the state and country.

Primary Source Accounts:

• Testimonials by the Sequoia Voting Systems Inc.
  

  The Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. provides defense to the dependability and accessibility of their Direct Recording Electronic machines through these various testimonials. Testimonials from eminent Election Supervisors proves the necessity of these machines in elections nationwide.

• Touch-screen vote Gets Tryout by Fritz Wenzel, The Toledo Blade
  

  Wenzel explores the use of touch-screen machines in Palm Beach County. Through his
  integration of statements from mark Beckstrand, a Vice President of the Sequoia Voting
  Systems Inc. Wenzel supports the use of these DRE machines in Lucas County. His article
  defends the dependability of thee touch-screen machines and provide hope for the use of them
  throughout the nation.

• Statement Computer Expert Opposed to ‘voter-Verifiable” Paper Ballot by Michael Shamos
  

  This statement, of Michael Shamos, posted by the League of women voters, defends the use of Direct Recording Electronic machines. While claiming that he has nothing against voter- verified paper ballots, Shamos explains the frivolousness of requiring them and the need of the nation to start placing more trust in these machines.

Perspective 2: The standards of the Direct Recording Electronic machines are out-of-date, and voter-verified paper ballots are essential to prevent fraud, error, and corruption. Furthermore, DRE machines and Internet voting may be less dependable than other methods, and therefore fail to provide accurate election results.

The use of electronic voting machines should not be permitted without a paper ballot. Voter verified paper ballots should be implemented to certify vote totals and be available in the case that there needs to be an election recount. In the November 2000 Presidential election, a computer glitch was discovered in Roosevelt county, New Mexico, which caused 533 absentee ballots to be counted improperly. Since optical scan ballots were used, the software was fixed and the ballots were rescanned two days after the election. However, without the ability to rescan ballots, the problem would not have been fixed. Meanwhile, in the same election in New Jersey, a DRE machine failed to count fifty votes, but the failure could not be corrected.This demonstrates the need of a paper trail for any electronic machines.

The government standards for the machines are outdated. The recent update, the 2002 Help America Vote Act, has been late in being installed and is not a proper response. The Federal Election Commission guidelines have been certified by only thirty-seven of the states, and are not protective enough. Not only are there no requirement that vote tallies be independently auditable, but commercial software products used in tabulating and balloting are not required to be inspected. Furthermore, the detectability of tampering on DRE machines is still uncertain. If scientists cannot freely investigate the machines, then they are vulnerable to both hacking and tampering. The machines are not as dependant as the vendors claim - there have already been several court cases filed alleging malfunctions in the machines. For example, in the September primaries in Florida, voters were turned away because of touch-screen malfunctions and a lack of trained poll workers.

The Supreme Court made a decision in Bush vs. Gore that a legal vote must have ‘a clear indication of the intent of the voter.’ However, if a DRE machine is used, they must rely on the dependability of the machine to count the vote correctly. Furthermore, the output of the machine is only 'circumstantial’ evidence to the voter’s intent and is not considered ‘real’ evidence.

Internet voting is very risky due to the ability of web sites to be spoofed, viruses, and hacking. There is no guarantee that the ballots are recorded anonymously and accurately or that the vote was placed by the correct person. The government claims that it is the individual’s job to get anti-virus software for their computer but the government fails to notice that the software would only protect the computer from known malware and server based attacks would still be possible. In the past, Internet voting services have not been dependable. Election.com was disrupted by the Slammer worm in the Toronto election on January 23, 2003. Also, the elections that have taken place via the Internet thus far have been small scale with limited stakes. The Arizona election faced failures that could have been devastating had the election been more contentious. There were incompatibilities between Macintosh computer and some voting system software, there were errors in voter registration logs, insufficient telephone help support, and a user interface that was inaccessible to blind voters.

Primary Source Accounts:

• Electronic Voting by Rebecca Mercuri
  

  Rebecca Mercuri, an outspoken advocate against electronic voting machines, expresses the necessity of voter verified balloting. She also claims that Internet voting is too risky for use in elections. In order to use electronic voting, she argues that our nation needs to implement appropriate standards.

• Slot Machines More Secure Than Voting machines by David Allen
  

  This article creatively explores the security of electronic voting machines. Through comparing the systems to gambling devices, Allen argues that more security measures are needed in order to trust electronic voting for our nation’s federal elections.

• Can America Trust Electronic Voting? by Freddie Oakley and John Oakley, The Sacramento Bee
  

  Freddie and John Oakley, special writers for the Sacramento Bee, express the opinion that better standards are needed for the electronic voting systems to be trusted. “Better standards,” will, they explain, “assure that future elections are properly conducted.” Moreover, they suggest the use of paper trails to make the electronic voting systems more dependable and trustworthy.

• Internet Voting by Bruce Schneier
  

  Bruce Schneier, an Internet security guru, claims that Internet voting is not a dependable method of voting. He admits that Internet voting may be more convenient but also warns that it will be very dangerous due to the amount of viruses affecting today’s computers. Moreover, he is against the use of electronic voting systems and recommends the use of simple voting systems in their place.

• Security Considerations for Remote Electronic Voting over the Internet by Avi Rubin, AT&T Labs
  

  Avi Rubin, a researcher at AT&T Labs, displays the inadequacy of Internet voting. He claims that the security issues plaguing the Internet make it dangerous for use of federal voting. In addition, he declares that since personal computer software is not yet ready to face the challenges of Internet voting, a new generation of computers with a trusted path between the user and the election server would need to be developed, which at this time is not probable.

Perspective 3: The cost of the Direct Recording Electronic machines is too high. The country should invest instead in improving Internet voting and other low cost options. Internet voting would also increase voter turnout. Since states and counties bare most of the cost of voting mechanisms, they should decide which voting systems are used within their borders.

Direct Recording Electronic machines cost about $5,000 each and most states are looking to replace voting equipment with about $100 million dollars already. Most of the cost would have to come out of state and local budgets. As Internet access becomes more accessible, people in districts that currently use mail-in voting systems could benefit. Internet voting would not only be cheaper than vote-by mail elections but would also be cheaper than the DRE machines and far more convenient to these districts. Also, it could be used for citizens who are overseas that want to vote. Anti-virus software could protect the voting system. Already, the 2000 Arizona Democratic Party election and the 2000 Alaskan Republican Party election have successfully used Internet voting. Also, in the November 2000 election, overseas military personnel were allowed to vote via the Internet.

The use of the Internet would increase voter turnout and follow the outlined security measures from the California Internet Voting task Force’s January 2000 proposal. Scanners could be installed for the use of punch cards. Or, optically scanned ballot systems with electronic equipment, which are currently used by the disabled, could be used. They are one-tenth as expensive as the fully electronic DRE machines and are recountable, reliable, and easy to use. Lastly, if the 20 or so DRE vendors were mandated to share data, the money could be well spent on new machines created from the generated data of this interaction. DRE machines could be created from off-the-shelf personal computers. This would reduce the cost by a factor of 10, and some DRE vendors even promote off-the-shelf PCs as an inexpensive alternative. There would be less risk of tampering with these PCs in opposition to DRE machines because they would not be created for the sole purpose of voting.

States are given the right to decide how elections will be run within their borders. If there is an election that is closer than the statistical margin of the machine being used in the district, a tie could be declared. This possible solution would deal with results equal to the statistical error and would be followed by another vote.

Primary Source Accounts:

• Electronic Voting by Lorrie Faith Cranor
  

  Lorrie Faith Cranor supports the eventual use of Internet voting as more convenient and less costly than other system. In defense for her view, Cranor admits that the Internet does need to be secured but provides a plan for the good characteristics of electronic voting which will make Internet voting a success in the future.

• Should we Support Internet Voting? by Omar Malik
  

  Omar Malik conveys the disadvantages and advantages of Internet voting through this reaction paper. He resolves that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, making internet voting a possible system for voting in the United States. He claims, among other things, that the Internet would be more cost effective than most other voting systems and would help avoid discriminatory actions that have occurred at public polls in the past.

• Paper/Opti-Scan vs. Touch-Screen by David Dill
  

  David Dill provides a few alternatives for DRE machines through this writing. He suggests the use of Optical Scan ballots and claims that using DRE machines would be a step backwards in the evolution of our nation’s voting system.

<back to table of contents>

Other Resources on the Voting Debate

• The Federal Elections Commission created a list of links related to voting in the United States including a link to FAQ’s about voting system standards and the history of voting system standards.
  
• M.E. Cowman has set up a comprehensive list of articles,legislation, and web sites dealing with the nation’s debate over voting systems
  
• Lori E. Ruttledge, a PC Technical Support Analyst and Associate Manager of Lockheed Martin Information Technology provides an unbiased examination of eleven currently used or proposed voting methods in the United States.
  
• Election Data Services provides the percentages of voting systems to be used in the 2004 election and a list of voting security articles.

<back to table of contents>

Classroom Activities

• Read through the viewpoints. Which perspective is most similar to your own? Which is farthest from your views? In what ways do you agree and disagree with these authors

• Fill out a Workable Peace Sources Chart, using your own views for Group A, and the viewpoint most different from yours as Group B . What are some of the interests, values, emotions, and identities associated with these points of view? Write 3—4 per source.
  
  Interests are the things a group wants, and their reasons for wanting those things. Values are beliefs in the group's “right” to something or a belief in the way the world “should” be. Identities are the words the group uses to name themselves, in terms of their history and culture, qualities and characteristics. Emotions are how the group “feels” about something.
  
  These four sources are distinct in some ways, and helpful to separate, but can also overlap to a great extent. For example, in a conflict over land the following viewpoints and emotions might be expressed: “we want this piece of land, we believe that we have the right to this piece of land, we feel angry that they have taken this land from us, and we are the people of this land.” Even where authors hold the same general viewpoint, look for differences in their reasoning/perspectives.

• Compare your chart with someone who has a different perspective. How is their description of your interests, values, emotions and identities different from your self- description? How is your description of their interests, values, emotions and identities different from theirs? Why might this be important?

• Look at the points of conflict between your perspective and their perspective (both of your Group A columns). Some interests, values, emotions, and identities may be in direct conflict, while others are different but not contradictory. Do the different viewpoints hold any common interests, values, emotions, and identities that can help to build a common base for conversation? Are there ways to resolve some of the differences? Are there proposals that would be good for both groups? Are there compromises or trade-offs that you could make to get more of what is most important to you in exchange for giving them more of what is most important to them?

• Have a discussion with your classmates about the key issues in this conflict. As you talk and listen, be conscious of your behaviors —try to follow the strategies that lead toward PEACE. Focus on explaining your views clearly, listening actively, acknowledging others' legitimate concerns, brainstorming options that reflect the needs of all points of view, and negotiating on the key issues to be resolved in a way that is likely to meet the primary needs and concerns of others.

<back to table of contents>

Extension Activities

• Group Presentation - Divide into groups by perspective. With your group, come up with 3 strong reasons to support your perspective. Think of 1 or 2 reasons to support the other perspective and then come up with a counter argument that will make your perspective1s argument stronger. Organize your points on poster paper and present your perspective to the class.

• Persuasive Essay - Write a persuasive essay arguing for one perspective. Make sure that you include the arguments that someone who held the other perspective would make and explain why your perspective makes more sense. Be clear about what actions you think the United States should take and why. Include quotes from the articles provided (or other articles) to support your argument. Click here for a rubric to use to guide and assess student work.

• Editorial - Write an editorial to a local newspaper explaining what course of action you think the United States should take and why. Look at other editorials to help you with the structure.

• Proposal for Resolution - You are a mediator working for the United States government. Create a proposal that both perspectives would consider reasonable (can be done individually or in a small group). Think about what values and feelings are behind what each side needs. Write or be ready to explain why you chose that particular solution and why you think it will be successful (i.e. accepted by both sides as reasonable).

• Research Project - Choose a topic related to the question 'Should the United States mandate the use of one voting system to be used by all of the counties?' to research thoroughly.

• Letter to a Political Official - Write a letter to your senator or congressman outlining what actions you think the U.S. should take to implement a successful voting system. Make sure you explain why you think this course of action makes the most sense.

<back to table of contents>

This page was researched and written by Workable Peace Intern Colleen Watras, a junior at Needham High School, who is currently focusing her studies on journalism.