Skeptics fear new voting system

Skeptics fear new voting system
Potential exists for fraud, error, they say
BY ADAM PARKER
The Post and Courier
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=117271

The manufacturer says nothing will go wrong. And, probably, nothing will.

The new iVotronic electronic voting machines aren't like other systems that have been hacked into or compromised by viruses, said Amanda Brown, spokeswoman for iVotronic manufacturer Electronic Systems and Software Inc.

The machines will capture, store and process votes in every county in the state Tuesday. Despite reassurances from ESS and county election commissions, some skeptics remain concerned that the state, in adopting a new voting method, has fixed something that was never broken, and set the stage for election-day improprieties never seen before.

Tim Kulp, a criminal defense lawyer, said he smelled something familiar when he found out about the state's adoption of the electronic voting system. For 15 years he's been challenging the computerized results of infrared spectroscopic alcohol-level tests generated by the DataMaster device. He has asked DataMaster maker Bostec Inc. to furnish the source code for independent testing, but the company has refused, Kulp said.

Then he read about voting machine maker Diebold, which also refused to make its source code available for testing a few years ago. And he read about a Princeton University study showing that the Diebold AccuVote TS "was vulnerable to extremely serious attacks."

"An attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates," wrote the study's authors.

And Kulp said he worries about the very nice but not necessarily techno-savvy poll managers, whose average age is 72 nationally, and who might freak out if they're asked to reboot a machine or recalibrate a touchscreen.

People have been defrauding election results for centuries, Kulp said. Why should they stop now? Why should citizens take voting-machine manufacturers at their word? "Just trust me? Uh-uh."

Brown said her company made its source code available to "independent testing authorities" who reported their results to the National Association of State Election Directors, the federal agency that certifies the machines.

The motherboard has three independent memory chips on which voting results are stored, she said. Should the system detect a discrepancy between the three chips, the machine will shut down.

Critics of electronic voting, including Kulp, say there are three opportunities for problems to arise:

1. As votes are cast at the machine.

2. As votes are processed.

3. As votes are transported from place to place by election staff.

During early voting late last month in southern Florida, a screen on at least one machine apparently was so out of synch that the verification screen displayed the wrong results, according to the Miami Herald. The voter chose a Democratic candidate but it was the Republican who turned up on the review screen.

The same thing happened in Jefferson County, Texas. When a voter selected the Democratic candidate, the machine recorded a vote for the Republican, according to KFDM-TV news. When the screen calibration was checked, no problem was detected.

Marilyn Bowers, director of Charleston County Board of Elections and Voter Registration, said she thinks the new machines are a significant improvement over the old mechanical voting booths.

She said a team of perhaps 30 "rovers" will attend to the basic functions of the iVotronic systems, setting up the machines before the polls open and shutting them down afterward. They also will address minor problems that might arise during the course of the day on Tuesday.

A team of five staffers, armed with passwords, will fix any serious problems, such as screens in need of calibration or machines that need to be rebooted.

When they are set up, each precinct has a unique Master PEB - Personal Electronic Ballot - that is used to activate the machines, Bowers said. Serial numbers are recorded and a "zero tape" is printed out to confirm that all candidates and ballot items are properly listed and that the slate is clean.

The Master PEB is used again at the end of the day to retrieve the votes stored on each machine, to print out a summary tape (which is reconciled with the morning's zero tape) and to shut down the system.

All Master PEBs are taken to the election warehouses, along with copies of the two tapes, and stored votes are transferred into a central repository called the Election Reporting Manager, or ERM. Also, results are left on individual machines in case officials need to review them, Bowers said. Results are also transferred to a flashcard that's plugged into the back of the voting machine.

In this way, officials capture three versions of the election results and can reconcile these versions should trouble arise.

Will Lasher, of Charleston, said the use of electronic voting machines limits officials from exercising judgment when it might be needed, and he worries about the reduced role of the human being.

A system that has traditionally relied on many people is being replaced with a system that relies on no one to do the counting, Lasher said.

Verifying results is more reliable when a piece of paper is produced for each vote, he said. When elections produce physical evidence there is less opportunity for fraud.

"The voting process is probably the fundamental cornerstone of our democracy," he said. "Reducing it to an electronic process compromises that cornerstone."

A technical engineer, Lasher's primary objection is not based on electronic voting's potential mechanical shortcomings but on the philosophical notion that technology by its nature represents improvement.

"It's a ludicrous reaction to a problem that's not there," he said.

Is manipulation possible? The experts seem to think so. Some citizens are concerned. Even election officials admit the risk of fraud. In the final analysis, Bowers said, its the vigilance of election officials that will ensure a clean vote.

"You've got to make sure of the integrity of the people doing the election," she said.

Reach Adam Parker at aparker@postandcourier.com or 745-5860.