So, what's REALLY wrong with electronic (aka. computerized) voting?  Is it that electronic voting is inherently a bad idea or is it just that it's done wrong?  Some would submit the former.  I disagree with all my being -- it's simply done wrong.  Not only is it counter productive to think EVT is inherently bad, it's also ignorant (or worse, based in fear).

Now, I'm going to step on some toes, if I haven't already.  In America, paper voting is wrong  Yes, it is morally and ethically WRONG.  As Americans, we pride ourselves in providing services in such a way that assists disabled persons in being self-sufficient and productive citizens.  How does a blind person fill out a paper ballot?  Or worse yet, a person with crippled arms?  We have the means and know-how to help these people vote independently and privately.  Let's do so.

Now, on the technical side.  I've heard, "Well, electronic voting machines are insecure."  Sure, the Diebold machines are insecure (Diebold has had fiascos all over the board regarding their voting machines -- just do a search on Google), but electronic voting machines aren't inherently insecure.  In fact, electronic voting machines are more secure than paper.  How many of us can forge a paper ballot?  A first-grader can do it.  How many of us have the know-how to infiltrate a hardened EVT?  Now that they should, at least for now, be partitioned (meaning that if one machine breaks or is compromised it can't affect the others).  How many people would have to be involved to throw an election via EVTs?  To really understand the enormous feat this would be, you need to understand how poll workers are selected and vetted -- it's more complex than you would initially think.

Sure, it's possible that an army of hackers could throw an election; however, it's highly improbable.  At Auburn University, we have been working on a project called PrimeIII.  We have designed a system that is highly secure.  In addition, the system is designed so that tampering is detectable, and mostly reversible.

Although the security is pretty close to impenetrable (the jury's still out on this however -- a security study is currently in progress to determine exactly how impenetrable it is), the best part about PrimeIII is that it is multi-modal -- if you can think, breathe, and hear or read you can vote, so a quadriplegic who is blind and can't speak can still vote independently and securely.  As far as I know, there is no other system that can say this.

PrimeIII isn't ready for "Prime Time" and will never be because it's a research project to prove that it is feasible to create a secure, usable voting system.  As American, we must invest in implementing such voting machines to solidify our democracy.

EVERY VOTE COUNTS -- MAKE IT SO!

Posted by: Travis