Computer voting must be accountable to be accurate

November 11, 2003

Computer technology has greatly contributed to the dramatic increase in our society's productivity. However, it is unwise to assume that a computerized system is always done well and correctly. Such an assumption is particularly unwise when a computer is performing an important task.

Few things are more sacred in America than the right to vote and to have that vote counted properly. Unfortunately, the new computerized voting machines provide no assurance that the votes are counted honestly. Instead, their use gives plenty of reason to believe that the count will not be accurate. Even if your precinct does not use these systems, there is still reason for concern because we are all affected by their use in national races.

To avoid the chad-laden mess witnessed during the 2000 election in Florida, changes are being made across the country. These changes have involved signing lucrative contracts with companies that sell computerized vote counting systems.

Since then, news has spread about the surprising and suspicious results. One example occurred in Cormal County, Texas, during the 2002 election, where three candidates from the same party won by exactly 18,181 votes apiece.

One could call this a coincidence, but the point is that we cannot know for sure, because they are designed to function as a ''black box.'' ''Black box'' is a term that means we cannot see inside the box to tell how it functions inside. When a voting system is a black box, it means that citizens are not allowed access to the internal workings to verify that they function honestly.

Courts have ruled that secret software can be used to record and count votes. It is very suspicious that citizens are denied access to the code that counts their votes. Not all software is kept secret. The successful Linux and Unix operating systems are distributed as ''open source.'' Open source means that the computer code is freely visible to anyone who cares to inspect it.

One of the first steps of developing any computer system, before a line of code is written, or hardware is selected, is a phase called requirements analysis. The goal of requirements analysis is to determine the qualities that the system must exhibit. What are the requirements for a vote-counting system? A key requirement is to provide confidence that the system works without any shenanigans. To partially accommodate this goal, a vote system must be open source. To choose otherwise is to have a system that cannot be trusted.

Who would develop such systems? The three leading voting machine manufacturers are substantial Republican campaign donors, and one of their chief executives, Walden O'Dell of Diebold, wrote a letter to Republican supporters saying he was ''committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.'' This is chilling. He did not write of a commitment to assuring an honest count. It is scandalous to have a partisan activist for any party overseeing the development of secret ''black box'' voting machines.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., proposed HR 2239, which requires all computerized voting machines to produce a receipt for each individual voter. This may be a good start, but not enough. If the software is not open source, there is no reason to be convinced that the receipt accurately reflects the vote recorded. This right to vote is worth nothing if the votes are not accurately counted. These machines do not allow the voters to check that their votes are accurately and permanently recorded. No one can prove that these machines are trustworthy.

Mark Jones, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the department of mathematics at Kutztown University. His e-mail address is mjones@kutztown.edu.