Image: Ted S. Warren/AP
|
This November, in what may be one of the closest U.S.
presidential elections ever, more than a quarter of the
ballots will be cast using equipment that directly
records votes only on electronic media, with no tangible
form of backup. That's nearly triple the number of
electronic votes cast in 2000. Twenty-five years in the
making, electronic voting is finally being widely
adopted in the United States and several other countries.
Unfortunately, in countless local contests in the
United States over the past few years, electronic voting
has shown itself to be an immature technology. In
election after election, machines have crashed or failed
to boot up at all, or experienced other software
glitches or power-related hardware problems. Perplexed,
undertrained operators only made matters worse.
Electronic voting systems do eliminate many of the
problems of paper-based ballots, such as Florida's
hanging chads and butterfly ballot layouts. But in their
rush to deploy the new technology, voting officials are
in some cases giving up one of the fundamental
requirements of a well-run election: the ability to do
an independent recount.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that many, if
not most, of the electronic voting machines that have
been deployed so far have been incapable of issuing a
printed ballot or receipt. So, for these machines there
would be nothing to recount if an election were
questioned, as the presidential one was in Florida four
years ago. In short, people using these direct-recording
systems will have no assurance that their ballots were
cast at all, let alone as intended.
That such a seemingly straightforward design challenge
has proved so elusive may seem surprising. But, as
Senior Associate Editor Steven Cherry points out in "The
Perils of Polling," running an honest election isn't as
simple as it appears. In the United States, a major
complication is that elections are run individually by
the 50 states using many different polling systems.
Another is the misplaced trust of state and local
bureaucrats responsible for choosing and deploying
election equipment, who have been insufficiently
skeptical of claims made by some manufacturers. Then
there's the way the profit-driven vendors themselves
rushed some of their machines to market. Finally, there
is the system design challenge itself, which for voting
machines is much more difficult than most people realize.
Technical remedies for what ails electronic voting are
in the laboratory. Cherry describes one promising
possibility, the brainchild of cryptography expert David
Chaum. But whether these solutions ever escape from the
laboratory will depend on time, money, and most of all,
how noisily the voting public insists on transparency
and verifiability.
In the meantime, if the record of recent local and
other elections is any guide, it's likely that some
machines will fail, perhaps in battlegrounds like
Florida. And if a few thousand votes decide the state,
and even the national outcome—again—look for another
uproar this November.
Engineering Ingenuity 1,
Bureaucracy 0
Since it started orbiting Saturn last June, the
Cassini mission has returned stunning images of the
ringed gas giant and its enigmatic moons. But Cassini's
most dramatic chapter will come in January, when a
European lander probe called Huygens, which has been
piggybacking on Cassini, is sent on a fiery plunge into
the murky atmosphere of Saturn's largest and most
mysterious moon, Titan. But what may be hailed in the
end as one of the great triumphs in space science would
instead have surely turned into one of the most
egregious fiascoes if not for the persistence of a
Swedish engineer named Boris Smeds.
Titan is completely covered by a thick orange haze of
hydrocarbons, and scientists have speculated that oily
oceans of methane and ethane may roil beneath the
cloaking clouds. After slamming into Titan's atmosphere
at 21 000 kilometers per hour, Huygens will pop its
parachutes and make a leisurely, two-and-a-half-hour
descent through the atmosphere. On its way down it's
expected to transmit a scientific bonanza from its
cameras and instruments, which will be relayed to Earth
by transceivers onboard Cassini.
But at launch time, seven years ago, a flaw lurking in
Cassini's receivers meant that the data was going to be
hopelessly scrambled. Along with his allies at the
European Space Agency, Smeds developed and championed a
rigorous test that revealed the flaw and its cause in
time for engineers to come up with a fix. As James Oberg
relates in "Titan Calling," doing so required Smeds to
battle bureaucracy, commute between Darmstadt, Germany,
and a NASA antenna farm deep in California's Mojave
Desert, and use all his engineering insight and
creativity to expose the flaw before time ran out.
In the finest tradition of the space program, Smeds
showed that engineers, too, can have the Right Stuff.
The editorial contents of IEEE Spectrum magazine does
not represent official positions of the IEEE or its
organizational units. Please address comments to Forum
at n.hantman@ieee.org.
There are a number of sites devoted to improving
electronic voting security and reliability. Among them
are those of the nonprofit Verified Voting Foundation
Inc.
(http://verifiedvoting.org);
Black Box Voting, a site created by Bev Harris, author
of a self-published book of the same name
(http://www.blackboxvoting.com);
and Rebecca Mercuri's Notable Software Inc.
(http://www.notablesoftware.com).
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, in Vienna, a 55-nation consortium that plans to
send observers to monitor the 2004 U.S. presidential
election, can be found at
http://www.osce.org.
In addition, the Verified Voting Foundation is also
organizing and training technology experts to monitor
the election. As of August, more than 700 volunteers had
signed up. For details, see
http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/techwatch/.